Does anyone have suggestions for voir dire examination when the victim is very uncooperative? The facts and evidence in the case are overwhelming that the defendant did commit the offense, but the victim doesn't want to prosecute. I have never had to actually go to trial in this kind of case. Usually, once the defense looks at the photographs, they agree to plea.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Point blank ask them why a Victim might not want to cooperate with law enforcement in a FV situation. You'll get the standard answers of fear, love, money, kids, etc. Remember, if they're not giving you the answers you want, you can LEAD them! But they will understand why a Victim would be against you. Also use your panel. Ask them if they or anyone close to them has ever been a victim of FV. Then ask those people if they called the police. Generally, they'll say no (or at least they didn't call EVERY time). Ask them why did they not call the police?

Also ask them what types of things do you hear from FV victims about their abuse or their injuries? You'll get a lot of things like, "I fell", or "it was my fault". Ask them if FV victims lie to protect their abuser. Your panel will say yes. Ask them why Victims do that and you'll get a lot of the same answers listed above. Once you've had a good discussion on this, ask them if they feel you should be prosecuting cases where the victim doesn't want to prosecute. You'll get a lot of people saying yes. Ask them why they feel that way. You'll get others saying no. Ask them why they feel that way. Don't be afraid of these folks! Identify them clearly and get them to say that they couldn't convict if the Victim is not cooperative, EVEN IF THEY BELIEVE THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That last part is key. If they won't convict even after you've proven guilt, they're gone for cause. If they say they COULD convict, you use your peremptories on as many as you can. Use friendly panel members to counter bad ones.

Basically, confront the issue HEAD ON and use it to your advantage. You can even voir dire on how a jury decides credibility between two stories from the same witness (one at the time of the incident and one in court if she's recanting). Have a discussion about this. Ask the jury what a victim of FV is THINKING when she picks up the phone to call for help? They'll say she's thinking she wants the assault to stop or she wants help or something like that. Then ask them is she's thinking about the LONG TERM effects of getting the police involved. They will always say no. Then ask them what a Victim is thinking weeks or months later when a case goes to court. Now they'll see where you're going and say that she's thinking about money and the kids and all that stuff. If you do it the right way, you can even get them to tell you that they would expect the FIRST story a Victim tells is the truth. You can also use this as an opportunity to emphasize other evidence like eye-witnesses, injuries, 911 tapes or whatever you happen to have.

You can absolutely get your jury to EXPECT her to recant and see that as evidence of GUILT. We try a ton of these here. Holler at me any time with questions. Good luck!

Great advice above. Most folks are somewhat familiar with the strange dynamics that make the abused want to defend the abuser. That's a requirement for the abuse cycle to continue like it does. Just get them to verbalize and acknowledge that fact. Then when your witness balks, it will be further proof of your case instead of a problem.