I Don't Want to Testify Against My Husband

It's possible, then, that your previous written statement will be entered into evidence as it was presumably prepared when you DID remember the events in question. And once you say you have no recollection, it will be hard for you to suddenly say that what you wrote was wrong.

Keep in mind that NO ONE will believe you when you say you do not remember. Some 75% of DV victims recant or refuse to cooperate with the case against their attacker, so many prosecutors are prepared for that - hence, the written statement.

First they have to subpoena you. Assuming the subpoena can be successfully delivered and you signed for it you should show up at the given time and place. If you don't show up it is up to the judge if he/she holds you in contempt. Your written statement is hearsay and the jury will not be allowed to see it, they must decide the case based on your live testimony and other evidence like documented injuries, the responding officers' statements etc. The defense attorney will get a copy of your written statement and will check for inconsistencies. Anyways, if there is no 3rd party witness or other evidence (like video surveillance) it is really your statement that is needed to successfully prosecute the case and the prosecutor knows it very well. Sometimes they stretch out a case as long as they can just to see.

Forcing DV victims to testify is a major mistake and there are communities that are revisiting this issue:

http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...-files-charges

Although the prior written statement is hearsay, the prosecutor would be able to introduce it under several of Washington's hearsay exception rules:

Option A: OP shows up in court and claims not to recall anything.

Prosecutor reads her the prior statement back to the witness under Rule 613 (Prior statements of witnesses) to refresh her memory, and then asks whether that testimony is accurate.

Option B: Available regardless whether OP shows up in court.

Rule ER 803(5)

Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning
a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has
insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully
and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness
when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect
that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record
may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an
exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

And of course there are things like what the 911 operator was told, and what the responding officers were told and witnessed for themselves upon arrival. A witness who suddenly "forgets" what multiple other people remember and noted comes away with zero credibility and the prosecutor will have a field day with that, harkening back to Carl's statement that some 70 to 80% of victims in DV cases attempt to recant, change, or forget their testimony. Prosecutors know this, as well as how to structure their cases such that the victim's statement doesn't need to be the crux of the case to get a conviction.

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

some 70 to 80% of victims in DV cases attempt to recant, change, or forget their testimony.

---

Yes, we all know these "statistics", what we don't know how many of these initial statements were one-sided, inaccurate and incomplete to begin with, like "it started when he hit back". A lot of the "victims" often times are just as much of at fault as the accused they just conveniently forget to mention their role. It rarely happens that someone goes home to beat up his/her spouse just for the hack of it :).

Quote:

---

Quoting Andrea80

---

Yes, we all know these "statistics", what we don't know how many of these initial statements were one-sided, inaccurate and incomplete to begin with, like "it started when he hit back". A lot of the "victims" often times are just as much of at fault as the accused they just conveniently forget to mention their role. It rarely happens that someone goes home to beat up his/her spouse just for the hack of it :).

---

Oh, don't get Catherine started! Or, me! The victims are rarely "just as much at fault" as the suspects! As I point out to victims who say they might have deserved it, my wife can push my buttons and get me ticked off, but only ONE PERSON makes the decision to turn the incident into a physical fight, and that would be me! The person that strikes makes that call.

Law enforcement generally seeks out the "primary aggressor." Even in a "mutual" fight, they try to sort out who was the primary aggressor in the incident. While this is usually the first one who laid on hands, it can also be the one who disproportionately retaliated.

If the victim's statement was somehow one-sided or coerced, then she should attend court to correct the record and explain WHY it was one-sided or how it was coerced. Though, honestly, I have seen victims outright LIE on the stand when they contradict themselves ... thank God for video and audio recording!