Domestic Violence, Malicious Wounding Charges

[Harvey]

thats understandable, however, i was just going by your quotes"If the DA is going for "malicious wounding", it's very serious and chances are excellent they already have the validation to substantiate the charge."'

What would be grounds to "re-file"? Besides, obviously, an incident happening involving an altercation between them two or something violent etc, what grounds does the prosecution need to re-file?

[cdwjava]

Unless the DA is a moron, or was bluffing to try and compel a plea deal, he likely believed he had what he needed for trial. Chances are that either one of the witnesses went sideways on him, or any expert medical testimony he had lined up was inconclusive.

One problem with these cases if they are not run through a true expert, the prosecution might have to rely on a surgeon or doctor who is not an expert at orthopedics or whatever area might be necessary to show that an injury was consistent with a blow from a fist or elbow as opposed to a fall to the floor. I have been involved in both types of cases. However, if the doctor decides he cannot conclusively make the case, or cannot say that one was more likely than the other based on his experience, then the DA may decide that the case is going to be harder - especially if the victim is loony or uncooperative.

Very often, even a strong case can hinge on the credibility of its one or two key witnesses. If that credibility is weak, the state may decide to cut its losses ... for the moment. It may also be that they have decided to run the evidence past another expert ... or, maybe they did not HAVE any good evidence. I'd be surprised if they lacked doctor's reports, but it is always possible they were poor or inconclusive as to the cause of the injury.

There are a host of reasons why a case might be dropped. Very few cases are actually "dismissed" ... they are rare enough that I cannot recall the last time I heard of a case being "dismissed" (which is an action by the court as previously explained).

As for validation, before the state pursues a criminal charge (assuming the DA is even mildly competent) they have what they believe to be sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes the ongoing investigation changes this opinion ... sometimes it makes the case stronger, sometimes weaker. In the case of DV you have to build a case with the assumption that the victim will aid the suspect and not the prosecution because that is what they do. And, sometimes, the prosecution just decides they do not have a strong enough case ... then, they will file it away and wait for it to happen again. If it happens again within the statute of limitations, they can always bring it back to life and have a two-fer if the victim decides she is tired of being a punching bag (assuming she was a victim, of course).

The tale you wove here is one that any of us who have dealt with DV have heard dozens or hundreds of times ... it is one that I have successfully investigated and helped to prosecute. So, it is understandable why those of us here with any amount of experience will be reluctant to buy into the self-inflicted psycho woman theory ... it is claimed so often as to be predictable, and is generally proven to be nothing more than fairy tale. Hence, the state continues to look into it until they can see that it is something else.

- Carl