By Kristin Burns
TDCAA Domestic Violence Resource Prosecutor in Austin
Intimate partner violence homicides are tragic. And for prosecutors, they are downright demoralizing when we, as part of the criminal justice system, had the opportunity to help and failed. Even when a homicide investigation is airtight and the verdicts are just, there are always lingering questions: Was there a moment, somewhere in the history of this relationship, when we could have intervened more effectively? Could we have prevented this death?
Prosecutors in the Criminal District Attorney’s Office in Tarrant County decided that these questions deserved to be answered. In 2017 they took the bull by the horns and created the Intimate Partner Fatality Review Team, a collaborative effort among prosecutors, medical partners, advocates, and law enforcement aimed at honest conversations to understand how these deaths happened and more importantly, how to prevent the next one. The team has been perfecting the model ever since.
I sat down with Assistant Criminal District Attorneys Allenna Bangs and Chase Payne (pictured at left) so they could explain what the team does and how it works. Allenna was part of the initial creation and Chase is the current leader, so their knowledge and insight is invaluable. The lessons they have learned can be implemented across the state, in offices big and small. Conversations about domestic violence fatalities are not easy—but in Tarrant County, they have been productive.
What is an intimate partner violence homicide?
Let’s start with the Tarrant County team’s definition of “intimate partner violence (IPV) homicide” because it’s different from the one used in the Texas Council on Family Violence’s report, which tracks single instances of violence that would qualify under the Texas Family Code definition. In Tarrant County the definition is: “a killing that results from an ongoing pattern of abusive behavior, including physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, or psychological aggression between current or former intimate partners.” A one-time violent event, even between individuals who meet the definition of family violence under the law, does not qualify as an intimate partner violence homicide. While one-time violent events are a reality, that’s not the reality this team is trying to evaluate. The team is looking for evidence of power and control with possible prior interactions with law enforcement, medical staff, advocates, or prosecutors. The goal is to find gaps in the system by mining information across partner agencies to see where the system can improve. Explosive, one-time events do not help in that evaluation.
Teamwork makes the dream work
This group is different from a Domestic Violence High Risk Team (DVHRT) that includes probation officers, sexual assault advocates, and other supervision-focused groups. The goal of a DVHRT is to evaluate ongoing risk with a focus on preventing imminent harm to living victims. The fatality-review team evaluates harm that has already occurred, so the team’s membership is different: prosecutors from the DA’s office, advocates from The Archway (a domestic violence support and shelter organization), representatives from local hospitals including SANE nurses, the Medical Examiner’s Office, emergency responders such as EMS personnel, law enforcement agencies, members of the protective order division, and any other collaborating agency that was involved with that particular victim.
The Tarrant County team meets four times a year, and each meeting lasts as long as the conversation requires.
Members are required to sign a confidentiality agreement as part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU); this agreement becomes more important in instances of murder-suicide where there isn’t a parallel criminal case. However, all of the team’s conversations and documents are still subject to the Michael Morton Act and ongoing discovery and Brady requirements. The first intra-team training covers criminal discovery and how it impacts the team; discovery requires the production of documents and information produced in the team meetings, but the confidentiality agreement provides for more honest and in-depth evaluations—individual members’ opinions are free to be developed and discussed. Everyone comes to the table knowing the system has possibly failed this victim, so they are to bring forth every bit of knowledge and documentation so the team can have a difficult but honest conversation. It is meant to save lives.
Evaluation
Cases are selected by team recommendations—any member can bring a case forward. Some cases are brought because of news reports and others in the more traditional way—from law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and medical personnel. Once a case is identified, then everyone who touched these lives (both the homicide itself and all prior interactions) are notified. Members then begin “mining” for records related to the individuals, not just the homicide. Police reports, interviews by police and Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworkers, digital evidence, medical files, CPS documents, protective order applications, BIPP (Battering Intervention and Prevention Program) records if the defendant had engaged in prior treatment, advocacy contacts, shelter documentation, etc. Every bit of information matters and that’s why the team uses the phrase “mining for evidence.” They search for interactions the parties had across systems.
A simple PowerPoint slide is then created identifying the victim, secondary victims, and anyone who had prior interactions with the victim and defendant. For example, if the victim had been seen by a local hospital and reported an “accident” prior to her death, which we now believe might have been a IPV event, that interaction with the hospital would be noted on the PowerPoint slide. Similarly, if law enforcement had been to the home in the past, that information would be on the slide as well. Each team member adds context to the conversation by supplementing facts while that slide is presented. It’s a clear, respectful way to keep the review focused.
The team evaluates the specific facts listed in the Fatality Review Template. (A copy of this template is available on TDCAA’s website; look for it as an attachment with this article.) Template questions include:
• type of relationship
• separation status at the time of death
• locations of relationship and final incident
• method of homicide or suicide
• sexual assault component
• documented substance abuse or mental health diagnosis
• history of previous strangulation
• previous criminal history (all parties)
• previous convictions (all parties)
• domestic violence shelter prior to death
• police department interaction prior to death
• gun ownership
• danger assessment score
• impact on children
• indications of a pattern of abuse
• trial status
Once these are answered, the team evaluates the big issues: Does this case meet the definition of IPV homicide? In other words, was there a pattern of abusive behavior motivated by the offender’s desire for power and control over the victim? If so, then this is an IPV homicide. This is where honest conversations can be challenging. The team doesn’t always agree if the case qualifies as an IPV homicide. The team doesn’t always agree on the offender’s motivation being based on power and control, and that’s OK. The point is to have the conversation and identify where the system could be better.
Some of the most difficult conversations involve when women are charged as offenders, the role of substance abuse or mental health involvement, and if the relationship history is unclear. We must remember that intimate partner violence is a choice, and research suggests substance abuse or mental health diagnosis do not cause violence. That’s not to say that those who treat offenders with substance abuse or mental health issues can’t do more to prevent violence.[1] These treatment providers’ hands are not tied; they must help hold offenders accountable for their choices too.
Additional questions include: Where did the system fail? What policy suggestions are recommended? What systemic changes? What practice changes? Allenna told me, “The fatality review has served so many purposes in our fight against domestic violence. We have identified gaps in services and made meaningful progress in filling those gaps; we have forged relationships with community stakeholders so that we work together instead of place blame when we encounter failures; and we have ultimately recognized those individuals who lost their lives to domestic violence to raise awareness so we can do a better job of meeting our ultimate goal of seeing justice done in our community.”
This retrospective review helped identify system gaps such as:
• cases that law enforcement never sent to the prosecutor’s office,
• investigations stalled because the victims were labeled as uncooperative,
• prior DV history that wasn’t known or clearly documented,
• the Domestic Violence Packet not being utilized by prosecution and law enforcement (a copy of this packet is on TDCAA’s website; look for it as an attachment to this article),
• dismissal of cases that should have been identified as high-risk, and
• victims seeking help but ultimately feeling like the system failed them or that going to police was a greater risk than staying with the offender.
System improvements
Tarrant County has had unexpected success throughout this process.
1) Local hospitals completely revamped the screening for IPV based on their employees’ involvement with the Fatality Review Team. One homicide victim had been seen at three different hospitals for injuries disguised as accidents. That led hospitals to overhaul their screening process: Victims are now separated from their partners during questioning, both in the emergency room and in the ob-gyn unit. A single DV victim changed the entire medical system.
2) Strangulation was identified as a high risk for fatality. The number of homicide victims who also had prior instances of strangulation events was stark. This realization caused both law enforcement and The Archway to take a more hands-on approach with victims of strangulation. Now, specialized teams from both are deployed for all strangulation cases; they discuss with victims the dangers of this type of abuse and collect specific evidence.
3) Case evaluation is now vastly different at the DA’s office. The phrase “first-time strangler” is no longer used in the IPV diversion unit. Those offenders are correctly identified as more lethal and therefore not eligible for the diversion court. Additionally, the use of guns in these homicides continues. That led to stricter scrutiny on unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and the identification of offenders who had access to firearms. Surrendering these guns became a more strategic part of plea negotiations.
4) Law enforcement training is being developed by a university professor who is part of the team to help identify the primary aggressor. Too many times police identified the wrong person as the aggressor in these high-conflict situations. Victims were being wrongly arrested because in the heat of the moment, their panic was mislabeled as aggression. (As an aside, I can’t wait to tell you more about this training when it’s ready to deploy—stay tuned!)
5) A deeper pool of experts has been created for testifying. The medical examiner’s office sends its Fellows to the team to help evaluate cases. These doctors are gaining knowledge about issues such as the lethality of strangulation, and their expert testimony in strangulation cases (with the knowledge they gained from evaluating homicide cases) is invaluable. Just think about it: By being part of this fatality review team, these doctors have seen women killed by strangulation without a single visible external injury. Such real-life experience, based on their education and training, is admissible in court. And because they work for the ME’s office, their testimony is free. The same rationale applies to SANE nurses and advocates. Both groups are expanding their knowledge because of their participation in the team. Now they can talk about the lethality of strangulation, the dynamics of family violence, recantation, victims returning to the offenders, and other aspects of intimate partner violence.
6) Better case building through stronger relationships, both within the DA’s office and with law enforcement, is another result of the team. The review process created communication channels that were either nonexistent before or that needed improvement. There is now a better understanding of why investigations stalled, why victims were uncooperative, and why cases weren’t forwarded to the DA’s office. These realizations have resulted in earlier identification of high-risk offenders, more consistent evaluation of family violence history, better understanding of Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.371, extraneous victims, and adjusted plea decisions.
The report
Information and conclusions made by the team are presented to the public and the Tarrant County commissioners court. The Archway creates the Fatality Review Report utilizing its grant writers and creative brains to make a visually impressive document. This report includes the definition of IPV homicide, breaks down the annual statistics for that calendar year, compares them to prior years, and discusses the particulars of individual cases anonymously. (It’s important to the team that the information about the victims remain anonymous to protect those who don’t want the public to know their loved ones suffered in abusive relationships.) Additionally, the report identifies key points, such as the danger in leaving an abusive relationship, the history of abuse, methods of homicide, and the role of murder–suicide.
Every year, the DA’s office presents the report to the commissioners court, which has resulted in additional funding for IPV units, strangulation training, and diversion courts. This report generates revenue and resources for the office and for high-risk victims! A copy is on the TDCAA website; look for it as an attachment to this article.
Building your own IPV homicide review team
I was absolutely gobsmacked when I learned that this team has cost the Tarrant County DA’s office nothing. Zero dollars. This isn’t a grant-funded operation; it’s a group of committed professionals, across several disciplines, who refuse to let domestic violence deaths go unanalyzed. And you can implement something similar in your own jurisdiction.
Find volunteers who are passionate about domestic violence and use them. Good people will step up for a good cause when called upon, and this is such a cause. Tarrant County utilizes a professor to gather the information in a scientifically valid format, which is great but not required if you don’t have that resource in your area. The data speaks for itself in most of these cases, and the team will be more than qualified to evaluate the information. Grant writers at The Archway create the report in a way that is visually appealing and worth the effort. I promise someone in your circle is artistic and will create an impressive report; think about local entities, city and county government, and nonprofits—there is likely a grant writer who will help. If all else fails, get your teenage daughter to teach you about Canva (an online graphic design tool) like mine had to teach me (it’s an ongoing process).
Employees of the medical examiner’s office and local hospitals volunteer their time to be part of the team and to testify as experts. Prosecutors are not paid overtime for their work, because being on the team is part of their job description.
People in your own community share this passion and will show up if called upon. You don’t need perfection; you just need progress and commitment. Putting together such a group will begin hard conversations, and these hard conversations can save lives.
Editor’s note: In December, Governor Greg Abbott appointed 21 people to the newly created Family Violence Criminal Homicide Prevention Task Force. Its purpose is similar to the team in Tarrant County: to analyze the top risk factors for family violence homicides and to provide resources to develop training for those who interact with victims of family violence.
[1] Bancroft, Lundy, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men, Berkley Books, September 2003.