Many times, the United States Supreme Court and state appellate courts hear cases that have broad implications for domestic violence victims, and NNEDV monitors such court cases closely.
 
In partnership with the Law Firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo NNEDV helps to ensure that battered women's voices are represented in landmark court cases. Mintz Levin also assists NNEDV with developing responses to critical issues impacting battered women and their children.

STATE OF OHIO V. MICHAEL CARSWELL - 2006

The Ohio Supreme Court is examining if the State's domestic violence statute creates a legal status for unmarried intimate partners, and whether the statute is unconstitutional now that the State has passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Issue One, Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Amendment, was passed by voters in November 2004, amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Similar to other Defense of Marriage Amendments proposed and passed in 19 states, Issue One declares that “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions.”  However, the amendment also stated that, “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”

The addition of the second sentence has prompted public defenders and attorneys to contest criminal domestic violence charges and requests for civil protective orders when the accused abuser is not married to the victim. Their claim – the Defense of Marriage Amendment makes the state’s domestic violence law unconstitutional.

In 2005, Michael Carswell was charged with committing the crime of domestic violence against “a family or household member.” Carswell, who is not married to his victim, claimed the Ohio domestic violence law was unconstitutional because it created a “legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.”

According to the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, there are 8 other similar cases currently pending in various appellate courts throughout the state.

NNEDV has filed a “friends of the court” brief urging the Ohio Supreme Court to recognize the protections promised to ALL citizens, married or not, under the domestic violence statute.

NNEDV's amicus brief supporting Ohio's domestic violence statute. (PDF)

ADRIAN MARTELL DAVIS v. WASHINGTON and HERSEL HAMMON v. INDIANA - 2006

The Supreme Court examined whether 911 calls or on-scene statements were subject to the Confrontation Clause restrictions enunciated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). NNEDV submitted an amicus brief urging the court to recognize evidence-based prosecution as an effective means to hold batterers accountable for their crimes.

On June 19, 2006, the Court handed down a decision in both Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana. In Davis, the Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings, stating that information provided during 911 calls were considered nontestimonial statements and were not subject to the restrictions of the Confrontation Clause.

In Hammon, the court reversed lower court rulings, saying that on-scene statements made to police were considered testimonial and were subject to the restrictions of the Confrontation Clause because 1) the emergency had ended and 2) the inquiries made by the police were not to assess an emergency but were to gather evidence for future legal proceedings.

The decisions in these two cases create an objective test to aid the judicial system in determining whether statements made to law enforcement during a 911 call or on-scene questioning constitute testimony in lieu of a victim testifying in court against an abuser.

NNEDV's amicus brief supporting evidence-based prosecution of domestic violence cases (PDF)

The Supreme Court's opinion in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (PDF)

GEORGIA V. RANDOLPH - 2006

The Supreme Court examined whether it is unconstitutional for police to search a home when a co-habitant consents and the other co-habitant is present and does not consent. On March 22, 2006, the Court ruled that it is a violation of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches if police search a home when one resident invites them in but another refuses their entry.

While advocates fear that this ruling could have an adverse affect on police responses to domestic violence calls, legal experts say this ruling does not prevent police from protecting victims of domestic violence. Counsel at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo have crafted an explanation of the decision's impact on domestic violence cases.