ParatrooperJJ said on January 28, 2008  

Is lying to police a crime in your state? It would seem that the perfect defense to perjury charges would be that the wife says she lied to the police and told the truth on the stand. Also how do you get around spousal privelege not to testify?

 Ken Lammers said on January 28, 2008  

Yes, giving a false report to a police officer is a crime. If I really wanted to cover my bases, I'd charge her with both and let a jury figure out which she is guilty of.

The great majority of the time spousal privilege does not come into play. Of course it will vary by State, but domestic abuse laws usually extend to, and seem most often to be applied to, couples that currently or recently lived together and/or have a child in common.

 ParatrooperJJ said on January 30, 2008  

Ok now here is a question, if you charged her with both, then wouldn't you be charging her with a crime you know she did not commit? I mean if she is guilty of one or the other then that means that she is innocent of the other? Is that not prosecutorial misconduct to charge someone with a crime you know that was not committed?

 jimbo said on February 02, 2008  

Ken-

In your experience, have you ever seen a lying victim actually successfully prosecuted based on the scenario you have laid out?

 Ken Lammers said on February 04, 2008  

jimbo,

Yes. I've not had to do one of these prosecutions myself because I seldom work in the domestic court. However, I saw a number of them when I was defense counsel. The woman always pled.

I stood in a Richmond area courtroom one day and watched as a prosecutor called up 5 cases in a row and, after the female victim refused to testify (none invoked the 5th, they just refused), had each one of the women arrested for filing a false police report. I always wondered how those turned out since they simply refused to testify and didn't give contradictory testimony.

 Rick Horowitz said on July 14, 2009  

Wow, I actually started to think you were okay until I read this post.

This is the same kind of thinking that is destroying our society generally, creating increased gang problems and increased crime. Talk about a recipe for PTSD.

If the only tool you had for stopping shoplifting was a machine gun, would you use it? Of course not.

So, recognizing that the tools you have for dealing with the problems you're trying to deal with just can't work without doing more damage, why do you not recognize that the best response is to only use the tools when the alleged victim has come far enough for it?

Or do you really think that damaging 999 women for life makes up for the one you might fail to help by not being just like her abuser?

 zerin hood said on July 17, 2009  

The Hammer hasn't answered, but I'll give you mine.
1) If a machine gun is the only tool I have and the law allows it, I would use it, even on shoplifters (but I might give them one warning burst first) if the option is do nothing and let them violate my rights, or someone else's rights.
2)What makes you think the 999 are damaged for life? On the other hand, Lammers could be saving the 999 women from continued abuse and death at the hands of their abusers. Of course, every case has to be taken according to its own merits and not under some blanket policy that is inappropriate to the specific circumstances.

 Donte Russo said on July 17, 2009  

I have seen many times when both the woman and man contributed to a minor altercation usually when they were drinking, most of the time nether one really intend to harm the other and subsequently they are Branded as a "Abuser" I don to like this law I disagree with it and I have seen it abused in VA many many times. I would like to ad I once served as a police officer. The law leaves little discretion to the officer(s) and this is why there are so many cases.