December 2012 - Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Introduction to the Violence Against Women Act Certifications
Written by: PCADV Legal Department
Each year, Pennsylvania receives millions of dollars in federal funds awarded by the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Some of this funding is authorized through the STOP
program in the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). STOP funds are awarded through a
formula grant to states across the country. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
(PCCD), as Pennsylvania’s STOP state administrator, distributes the funding to Pennsylvania law
enforcement, prosecution, victim services and courts consistent with the funding priorities established
in VAWA and as set forth in Pennsylvania’s STOP Implementation Plan.
In order to receive this funding, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as any local Pennsylvania
jurisdiction receiving a STOP funding award, certifies that under its laws, policies and practices:
Domestic violence victims do not pay to file a Protection From Abuse Petition or criminal
charges;
Domestic violence offenders receive judicial notification of firearms prohibitions;
Sexual assault victims are not charged for forensic medical exams, and they do not have
to cooperate with law enforcement to receive a free forensic exam; and
Sexual assault victims are not required to undergo a polygraph exam.
Pennsylvania and all of its local jurisdictions must comply with these requirements, or STOP funding,
used for law enforcement, prosecution, victims’ services and the courts, could be forfeited.
Look for our continuing series of articles highlighting VAWA requirements in this publication. This
newsletter’s article focuses on the requirement that victims of sexual assault cannot be charged a fee
for receiving a forensic medical examination.
The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence has developed a webinar, training materials,
factsheets and other resources about the VAWA requirements.
(http://pubs.pcadv.net/palegal/VAWA_Compliance_CONTENTS.pdf) For more information, please
contact the PCADV Legal Department at 888-235-3425.

Courtroom Evidence: A Resource for The Prosecution of Domestic
Violence Cases
Written by: PCADV Legal Department
Domestic violence cases present unique discovery and evidence issues. To assist prosecutors in their
efforts to hold domestic violence perpetrators accountable by prosecuting domestic violence cases, the
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has developed a new resource, Courtroom
Evidence: A Resource for the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases.
This resource is designed to provide prosecutors with the legal basis for strategies to overcome
evidentiary challenges and to more effectively prosecute domestic violence perpetrators through the
use of evidentiary rules and relevant statutory and case law. This resource concludes with substantive
information about domestic violence, including information about the dynamics of coercive control,
separation violence, and the possible use of expert testimony to explain victim behavior.
In all, a deeper understanding of victim and perpetrator behavior, coupled with advanced strategies for
the admission of evidence, will enable prosecutors to paint an accurate picture of the circumstances
surrounding the case and, in turn, will allow the judge or jury to make a more informed decision.
Courtroom Evidence focuses on some of the most pressing issues when prosecuting domestic violence
cases: the confrontation clause, evidence-based prosecution and social media authentication. This
article also summarizes these key topics and explains how the prosecutors’ resource will assist
prosecutors faced with complicated domestic violence cases.
Confrontation Clause
Domestic violence often has only two witnesses: the victim and the perpetrator. But if a victim is
unwilling or unable to testify, either because he or she fears retaliation by the perpetrator, was
incapacitated or even killed, the prosecution must rely on out-of-court statements to police, family,
friends, and others. Unfortunately, the admissibility of such statements is uncertain. Over the last few
years, developments in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence have made it increasingly difficult to
introduce evidence of domestic violence in cases where the victim is unable to testify.
Courtroom Evidence examines the ways in which confrontation case law allows for the admission of outof-court
statements made by a victim of domestic violence, and provides strategies that prosecutors can
use to overcome confrontation hurdles. Analysis of confrontation case law provides in-depth
information about recent legal developments and avenues.
For more information about the Confrontation Clause please see:
U.S. Supreme Court Decision Giles v. California, STOP Newsletter, Spring 2008 available at
http://pubs.pcadv.net/palegal/STOPnewsletterSpring08.pdf.
Crawford-Hammon-Davis: Trio of Supreme Court Opinions Impact Evidence-Based Prosecutions, STOP
Newsletter Winter/Spring 2007, available at http://www.pcadv.org/Resources/WinterSpring_07.pdf

Evidence-Based Prosecution
Victims of domestic violence often are reluctant to testify against a perpetrator. Many factors, such as
fear of retaliation, stress, trauma, economic necessity, and cultural considerations may motivate their
reluctance. Unlike cases where the victim and perpetrator are unrelated, victims of domestic violence
are intimately connected to their perpetrators, so their decision to testify is often extremely complex
and necessitates compassion and understanding.
Fortunately, prosecutors can use evidence-based trial tactics to successfully prosecute domestic
violence cases even without the victim’s testimony. Thoughtful preservation of evidence, thorough
investigations, and use of non-hearsay and non-testimonial victim statements can aid the prosecution in
meeting its burden without compelling a victim’s testimony. Moreover, careful utilization of the primary
purpose test and/or the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may even allow prosecutors to
successfully introduce testimonial statements notwithstanding confrontation challenges.
Courtroom Evidence discusses how to employ these evidence-based tactics to prosecute domestic
violence cases. Using these tactics avoids the need to compel a victim to testify, thus protecting the
victim from further trauma.
Social Media
Social media is now a primary form of communication and, as a result, people are sharing personal
information, photos, and conversations on a scale that has never been seen before. Thus, social media
has become a repository of information that can be used as evidence in criminal and civil cases.
Perpetrators of domestic violence, for instance, regularly use social media as a means to control,
threaten, stalk, and harass their victims – either by making direct threats, starting malicious rumors,
monitoring the victim’s activity and whereabouts, or creating fraudulent postings in the victim’s name.
Courtroom Evidence provides tips and information about how to discover and preserve evidence on
social media sites. It further provides a comprehensive analysis of relevant case law on the admissibility
of social media evidence, particularly with regard to authentication.
For more information about social media, please see:
Recent Pennsylvania Criminal Cases Involving Stalking and Technology, STOP Newsletter, Spring 2010,
available at http://www.pcadv.org/Resources/STOP%20Newsletter%20spring%2010%20web.pdf
Using Technology to Stalk and Harass, STOP Newsletter, Summer 2009, available at
http://www.pcadv.org/Resources/STOP_newsletter_Summer09.pdf
To obtain a copy of Courtroom Evidence: A Resource for the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases,
please contact the PCADV Legal Department at 1-888-235-3425 or email sshoop@pcadv.org

Cambria County’s Sexual Assault Response Team: An Effective
Multidisciplinary Approach
Written by: Kelly Callihan, District Attorney, Cambria County
In June of 2009, Cambria County’s VAWA STOP Task Force formed a Forensic Compliance Planning
Committee. In October of 2009, this committee, which included the Cambria County District Attorney’s
Office, The Women’s Help Center, Victim Services, Conemaugh Memorial Hospital, and the Johnstown
Police Department, applied for VAWA STOP formula funding to develop a countywide Sexual Assault
Protocol that would address the forensic compliance mandates of the 2005 Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA 2005). The potential funding would include monies for a development director to oversee
the project as well as funds for the training of twelve Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE).
The Cambria County Forensic Compliance Planning Committee, which would soon evolve into the
county’s first Sexual Assault Response Team (SART), was delighted to learn in December of that year
that the grant proposal had been awarded.
I was sworn in as District Attorney in January 2010 and learned that I would oversee this project and be
tasked with hiring a development director to lead our county effort toward compliance. What I did not
know at that time, amid the intensity of my transition from an assistant district attorney role to that of
DA, is that this project would bridge new bonds within the criminal justice system that would assist me
and my office in the investigation and prosecution of all types of cases, not just those involving sexual
assault, well into the future. I can say now, in hindsight, that this project is one of my most treasured
career accomplishments because it helped me view situations from the standpoint of the victim and see
that my concerns as a prosecutor are not always a priority nor mirror the concerns of other agencies
within the criminal justice system. The creation of our Cambria County SART team, where open
discussion is encouraged and issues are resolved together, truly benefits everyone involved and protects
the interests of the victim. I am proud of our county team and the accomplishments we have made
throughout the course of this project.
In February of 2010, Cambria County launched a fifteen-month long process that would not only address
the standards for forensic compliance as mandated by VAWA 2005, but would establish the county’s
first SANE/SART program, standardizing across the county both the quality of care for sexual assault
victims and the collection of forensic evidence.
VAWA 2005 mandates that hospitals provide a medical forensic sexual assault examination without
requiring victims to participate in the criminal justice system or cooperate with law
enforcement. However, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania leaves the methods of this compliance to
the discretion of local jurisdictions. Although numerous reporting methods comply with VAWA
mandates, through a careful planning process, our county’s responders decided to provide victims with
a method of full Anonymous Reporting.
Studies show that few victims report sexual assault to law enforcement immediately. Many victims will
first disclose the assault to a victim advocate or medical professional. Often victims are unsure, unwilling

or unable to make an immediate decision about whether or not to participate in the criminal justice
system in the traumatic aftermath of an assault. Victim disclosure is usually not a one-time, all-ornothing
event, but a process. Any real or perceived pressure put on these victims to report immediately
may in fact discourage future or continued involvement in the judicial system.
Cambria County’s Anonymous Reporting Protocol provides sexual assault victims with a comprehensive
and compassionate medical exam, timely forensic evidence collection, and strict standards for chain of
custody and storage, while still safeguarding complete anonymity for victims who choose not to contact
law enforcement or choose to delay contacting law enforcement.
Cambria County SART wanted to create a protocol with the objective of promoting better and more
victim-centered care, and effective evidence collection, in order to increase reporting and ultimately
hold more offenders accountable.
The process of developing an authentic collaborative protocol is hard work and unfortunately, there is
no one-size-fits-all model policy that can simply be cut and pasted to fit into a county’s existing protocol.
Early on, our team realized that an authentic multidisciplinary team approach could not involve simply
assigning a single individual the task of producing a document that would be sent out for comments and
revisions. It would have to involve a series of long-term conversations and decisions informed and
guided at every step by the specialized knowledge and expertise of each response agency.
Despite the challenges that are sometimes associated with multidisciplinary collaboration, victims are
better served if all disciplines have an opportunity to have input into the written policies. It simply isn’t
possible for one agency to meet all of these challenges alone.
In developing Cambria County’s Sexual Assault Response and Anonymous Reporting Protocol, the
Cambria County SART relied on an eight-step method.
1) Inventory and evaluate existing services available to victims.
2) Determine community needs based on that evaluation.
3) Draft a victim experience survey that will be used for future annual evaluations.
4) Launch the team writing of the new protocol.
5) Distribute the new protocol to all SART agencies, County 911 operators, Emergency Paramedics,
mental health agencies, university health professionals, judges, magistrates, assistant district
attorneys, social service agencies, and every law enforcement agency in the county for review
and comment before final adoption by SART.
6) Adopt protocol and renew agency commitments.
7) Train all first responders and the wider community on the new protocol.
8) Establish SANE/SART criteria for Case Review and develop monitoring procedures, which
include continuously completing the above eight steps.

The first two steps, evaluating existing services and determining community needs, were essential
components of the STOP funding proposal, and to the much longer process of establishing an effective
team protocol.
Of course, it was immediately evident that our county lacked trained SANEs. From the beginning,
Conemaugh Memorial Hospital Emergency Department administrators and nurses were enthusiastically
involved. This was highly important since the assessment; examination and evidence collection is
performed in the emergency room and cannot be done in retrospect. If the evidence collection is done
improperly or the chain of custody not properly maintained, the result may be a thwarted investigation
and unsatisfactory prosecution. SANE expertise is also important to establish credibility when testifying
in a court of law. SANE training was our first priority.
Next, it was essential that our SART team members had a good foundational understanding of guiding
principles of each of our county’s agencies. It is important to remember that each agency does not in
fact share the same goals, and that SART does not substitute for the individual expertise of its member
agencies, but informs the decisions of all responders through a greater understanding of each agency’s
motivations and best practices. We wanted to make certain that all of our responders could visualize
each step of the protocol, from initial contact with the SANE and advocate through the exam process,
through to the evidence handling and storage.
Developing an effective protocol also requires some out-of-the-box problem solving. In planning
Cambria County’s protocol, we found it beneficial to involve some individuals from disciplines that may
not be traditionally involved in the direct response to sexual assault victims.
For instance, when discussing how anonymous kits would be labeled and stored, it was helpful to
involve the evidence sergeant who would be responsible for the kit storage. To ensure victims did not
receive bills for the medical forensic examination, SART representatives met with the billing department
at Conemaugh Memorial Hospital. When discussions surrounding proper collection procedures and
chain of evidence handling began, we invited State Police Crime Lab personnel to meet with our
responders.
When it came time to train responders on the new protocol, we decided to include professionals from
the wider community, including high school and university administrators, social service agencies,
medical professionals, prison personnel, and offender treatment providers, recognizing that
professionals from many disciplines play a significant role in helping to recover a sense of peace and
security in the life of the survivor and in the community at large.
The benefits of working within a multidisciplinary framework like SART are many. Strong
multidisciplinary teams with active participants are able to communicate openly and honestly with one
another. These partnerships are therefore better able to adapt existing policy, or to create new policy as
needed.
In May of 2011, Cambria County officially enacted the new Sexual Assault Response Protocol and
Anonymous Reporting Method.

In our first year, our county’s victim advocates witnessed the number of hospital accompaniments more
than triple. Our protocol’s very clear message that an advocate should be called in every case of sexual
assault contributed greatly to this increase, as did the Anonymous Reporting option.
Since the inception of Anonymous Reporting, four victims have chosen to report anonymously. At this
point, two victims have chosen to have their evidence destroyed and two are still weighing the option of
speaking to law enforcement.
Team members agree that our protocol should be ever evolving. Through regular SANE/SART meetings,
case reviews, and ongoing suggestions from the field, we are continuously monitoring, evaluating and
improving our protocol and our response to sexual assaults. Most recently, Cambria County SANE/SART
has increased the holding period for anonymous assault evidence from 180 days to 2 years.
Because the Cambria County SANE/SART engaged the wider community in the opportunity to educate
one another and have input, all of Cambria County’s disciplines have a greater degree of commitment to
the process, and it can truly be called a comprehensive and countywide response to the crime of sexual
assault.
This increased understanding of everyone’s roles in our county has certainly led to a more victimcentered
approach, and individual team members now find it easier to fulfill their day-to-day
responsibilities with the support of SANE/SART.
The relationships that I built through this process assist me in many investigative and prosecutorial
matters, not just sexual assault situations. What I learned is that I can tap into the expertise of the
individual members of SART for advice or consult the team as a whole when unique issues arise within
the system. I also cherish the face-to-face, personal interaction it provides with other leaders in the
community. For instance, I now have a direct link to our local hospital emergency room personnel on a
first name basis which is beneficial when coordinating court testimony and trial preparation; a
relationship that would still be lacking if not for this project and the development of our county SART. I
look for our SART to continue to expand well into the future and remain a tremendous benefit to
Cambria County.
Although I realize that every county will vary in their approaches to handling the VAWA 2005 mandates,
our team will make available our protocol as an example or model, if requested. However, part of what I
believe has made our protocol successful, was the process of designing the protocol with each team
member as a contributing factor. Working with your team in a similar way will help build bonds
between your agencies and ensure practical functionality that will make your protocol unique to your
county’s needs.

To unsubscribe to this newsletter please reply “UNSUBCSCRIBE”.
Copyright © 2012 PCADV & PCAR, All rights reserved.
This project was supported by sub grants No. 22104 and #### awarded by PCCD, the state administering office for the STOP
Formula Grant Program. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication / program /
exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of PCCD or the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on
Violence Against Women.