Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties

In the state courts of 16 large urban counties, 3,750 cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) were filed in May 2002. These cases represent 83% of the 4,562 domestic violence cases filed in the 16 counties. A case was defined as intimate partner violence if it involved an allegation of intentional physical violence committed, attempted, or threatened between spouses, ex-spouses, common-law spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, present or past. For more information on the definitions of domestic violence and intimate partner violence used in this report, see the Methodology. More than half of IPV defendants were convicted, and of those convicted, more than 80% were sentenced to incarceration in either prison or jail. This report examines the case characteristics that are associated with an increased likelihood of conviction. This report is based on data collected in the study Processing of Domestic Violence Cases in State Courts, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Findings are based on information documented in prosecutor files and court records of 3,750 intimate partner violence cases. Cases were tracked for one year following the defendant’s first court appearance in May 2002. Most cases of intimate partner violence involved a female victim and a male defendant Victims in intimate partner violence cases were generally female (86%), while defendants were generally male (86%) (table 1). The majority of IPV cases (84%) involved a male defendant and a female victim. Twelve percent of cases involved a female defendant and a male victim (not shown in table). In 4% of IPV cases, the defendant and victim were of the same gender

Court Review: Volume 44, Issue 1/2 – The Perceptions of Self-Represented Tenants in a Community-Based Housing Court

This study examines the impact of the Harlem Community Justice Center, a community-based housing court that attempts to achieve speedier and more durable outcomes in landlord-tenant disputes. However, it may be particularly beneficial to pro se litigants (i.e., those who represent themselves without an attorney). In New York City, most landlords are represented, while the vast majority of tenants are not. In fact, one report notes that only 12% of tenants are able to afford counsel while 98% of landlords are represented. The primary objective of this study was to examine the experiences of pro se tenants whose cases are heard in Harlem, surveying their perceptions of the fairness, accessibility, timeliness, respectfulness, and comprehensibility of the court process. We conducted a survey of pro se tenants both in Harlem and in New York City’s centralized housing court located in southern Manhattan (hereinafter referred to as “downtown housing court”). Survey results were supplemented with structured court observations, also conducted at both locations