Non-Prosecution of sexual violence is a civil rights issue
Most people are familiar with the idea that an employer (Title VII) or a school (Title IX) violates a person’s civil rights when it allows, or fails to address, sexual harassment. It is not only the harasser who is at fault; it is the organization or institution.
Fewer people have direct personal experience with the failures of law enforcement, including district attorneys offices, to investigate and prosecute sexual violence or other gender-based violence. In addition to representing students going through the Title IX process at their university to address sexual violence, I have been representing a woman who experienced sexual assault in her home and who has been deeply disappointed in the way the local DA’s office has handled her case. As reported by NBC Bay Area last night (April 11) in its remarkable investigative story, the San Mateo County DA’s office allowed the defendant to plead to a non-sex crime and avoid any jail time. Only after he violated his probation for a much less serious offense (DUI) did he receive jail time — six months. The DA’s Office largely excluded my client from the process; she did not have the opportunity to provide input into the plea deal or sentence. This institutional betrayal inflicts further trauma and exposes the community to further harm.
Not isolated
As NBC reports, this was not an isolated situation. The DA’s office often resolves serious sexual violence cases for probation only, even allowing defendants to plead to misdemeanors. This discrimination against victims of sexual violence occurs against a backdrop of five homicides last year in the county that involved domestic violence, including at least two in which there had been prior contact with the criminal justice system for domestic violence.
On behalf of my client, I submitted a letter to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting a pattern or practice investigation of the DA’s Office’s discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The County clearly requires oversight and scrutiny to ensure it takes these crimes seriously. The letter details several cases similar to that of my client’s, and reviews the extensive data that NBC obtained and analyzed. As I told the NBC reporter, “The institution meant to protect and seek justice for victims should not compound the profound trauma these victims have already experienced.”
Systemic causes
The letter also details a range of potential underlying systemic issues at the DA’s office, including lack of policies and training, failure to hold prosecutors accountable, the need to track their data, and inadequate supports and resources. Prosecutors do not sufficiently review or prepare their cases; do not follow Marsy’s Law, which requires ongoing communication and consultation with victims; and do not take a trauma-informed approach to how they communicate.
San Mateo County is by no means unique. The US Department of Justice has investigated other local police, and even another DA’s office. It provides guidance to local agencies. San Mateo County should learn from these other cases and work to make the community safe for women by taking gender-based violence seriously.
Next steps
We will continue to advocate for reforms. We have reached out to County leadership so that my client can share her experience and insights. Women must be assured that their safety and trauma matter, that they can come forward and report these crimes. It is a matter of both public and community safety and constitutional rights.
