Washington, DC—Named as a 2012 “Super Lawyer” by the Washington Post, Cary Feldman has been working as an attorney for 38 years.  He has been in private practice around stints as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as the Deputy Independent Counsel for the investigation of Bruce Babbitt, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Today, Feldman specializes in white collar criminal defense, working since 2002 as a partner at Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

Feldman thinks that the biggest case he was ever assigned may well have been his first. “I was working on the Watergate case representing the former Attorney General of the United States, John Mitchell.  I did extensive work on that case, where I was exposed to a lot,” he said in a recent interview with laws.com. “One lesson I learned from that case was not to be surprised when judges don't decide issues as they otherwise might when a case is under the public eye.”

Not all clients are equally easy to represent, Feldman says. “I use three measurements to assess my clients,” he told laws.com, “which I've borrowed from the legendary Edward Bennett Williams, one of the earliest and foremost white collar criminal defense attorneys and founder of the law firm of Williams & Connolly. The first rule is that a client should truthfully tell me everything there is to know about his or her case; second, a client should follow my advice and counsel; and third, the client should pay my bill.”

Bad clients, according to Feldman, “will usually follow none or just one of these rules, and the best clients follow all of the rules.” Feldman's prestige as a criminal defense attorney has brought high profile clients, who can sometimes be a handful for even a seasoned attorney. “Celebrities must be reminded of these guidelines–particularly to follow my advice and counsel– because they are used to calling the shots and doing things their way.”

As a criminal defense attorney, Feldman says that his greatest challenge came after the implementation of  federal sentencing guidelines that resulted in lengthier sentences in white collar cases, and consequently greater pressure to avoid prosecutions or minimize the length of sentences through plea agreements. “When these guidelines came along, I felt it was a terrible public policy decision. It changed the way things were done. The risks of going to trial became so great, and I had to place greater emphasis on reducing those risks, which often meant avoiding going down the road to trial.”

Feldman says that professionally, he is always looking to go to trial, but today trials are rare for his clients. “It's not a good idea to try a case unless it is triable, although sometimes the defendant has no choice but to go to trial.” In the rare event that a case does go to trial, “the defendant must be prepared not just financially, but emotionally as well.”

After a long career in law, Feldman says he's still not too busy to help future attorneys—for him, it's just a matter of paying it forward. In fact, he says that his inspiration to become a criminal defense attorney came all the way back to early in his first year of law school, when two lawyers from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia spoke to his class and recruited him as a student investigator. “If a student or anyone interested in pursuing a career in criminal defense approaches me, I always find the time to talk to him or her, because when I needed guidance and advice as a student, other attorneys were there to help me.”

San Francisco, CA—While some lawyers clamor for cases that put them in the spotlight, for criminal defense attorney Nanci Clarence, pride in her work comes from other sources.  “The cases that I am the most proud to have handled are cases that no one has ever heard of,” she told laws.com in a recent interview.  “Making a case disappear is the greatest outcome for any client.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

As a teenager, Clarence worked for a law firm as a courtroom runner, and would often be asked to file papers with the Superior Court.  “Whenever I was at the courthouse,” she says, “I would pop into a courtroom to watch the lawyers, and it struck me that the public defenders had the most noble and interesting job.  They were representing the 'little guy' in cases dealing with the most important part of life—freedom.  This made a lasting impression on me.”

Clarence says that she knew criminal defense was right for her from the moment she finished her first case: “My first trial as a public defender was representing a 75 year old man who was facing his 75^th arrest, and we beat the case.  It was not exactly a big case, but the joy of walking that gentleman out of court coursed through my veins and there was no turning back!”

As Clarence's talents for criminal defense made themselves apparent, she was able to take bigger and bigger cases.  Her first major case, complete with daily press coverage, was defending financier William Oldenburg against fraud charges stemming from a savings and loan case.  In that case, she learned a critical lesson.

“We prepared a full defense with scores of fact witnesses and experts, but after the government rested, I realized that our best move was to rest without putting on a single witness,”Clarence recalls.  “Even though we had things to say, the government had failed to prove its case.”

The seemingly risky move paid off—first with a hung jury, and then with the government dismissing the case against her client.  “There are lots of ways of winning,” Clarence says, “and learning to put the ego and the case on the shelf was an important lesson learned.”

Recent trends in criminal law are worrisome for both criminal defendants and their attorneys, according to Clarence.  “The playing field was never really level, but the power of the government has increased exponentially in the time I've been a criminal defense lawyer.”

The difficulties for defendants can be extreme in today's court system, she says.  “Mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines and a disappearing 4^th Amendment ratchet the system and cause criminal defendants to settle cases that should really go to trial.”

Clarence says that in her experience, even when the evidence is against a client, they shouldn't always take a plea deal.  “There are plenty of cases that should go to trial, even when the evidence is strong, because the case has been over-charged, the client's role is overstated by the charges, or the consequences of a plea are too devastating.”  

After years of experience, Clarence knows that taking even what seems like a hopeless case to trial can be advantageous: “With prosecutors offering deals that strictly adhere to sentencing guidelines, it is not uncommon to take the case to trial and beat the settlement offer at the sentencing.  So long as you have tried a good and honest case, most judges will not punish a defendant for taking a case to trial, and that is the way it should be.”

Washington, D.C.—It would be hard to imagine a more illustrious career in criminal defense law than that of 83 year old Plato Cacheris.  Cacheris, a son of Greek immigrants who originally hoped to be ambassador to Greece, has instead spent a lifetime representing clients ranging from Attorney General John Mitchell, accused in the Nixon-era Watergate corruption scandal, to notorious presidential intern and mistress Monica Lewinsky.  In between, he's been involved in defending figures accused of involvement in Iran-Contra and international espionage.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

While his career was made in high-profile defense cases, after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center, Cacheris started at the other counsel table.  “I spent eight years working as a prosecutor,” he told laws.com in a recent interview.  “In 1965, I decided to pursue a career in private practice.”  

Cacheris says that anyone considering criminal defense as a career option should consider starting the same way he did: “The best advice I can give to a law student is to become a prosecutor.  The next big step would be to become a defense attorney, but be sure you know your stuff pretty well before making this step.”

Sentencing guidelines have been a consistent challenge for Cacheris, as well as other defenders who often represent clients in federal court cases.  In a 2000 interview with The Washington Lawyer, Cacheris called federal sentencing guidelines “an abomination.  They have taken advocacy out of the sentencing process in criminal cases and replaced it with a rigid grid.  The human element and discretion has been completely removed.  I think that's wrong, and it doesn't produce justice.”

For criminal defense attorneys in the legal world today, Cacheris told laws.com, “the biggest challenge we face are the sentencing guidelines, which is still a problem we face today,” decades after they were enacted.  In his interview with The Washington Lawyer, Cacheris said: “[The guidelines] have had a chilling impact.  Few clients want to risk going to trial anymore.  In drug cases the sentences are draconian.  There is also a big risk in white collar cases … that creates a heavy incentive to cut a deal, if you can do so.”

Today, with sentences so severe, he told laws.com, “a plea deal seems to be less of a risk.  Depending on the evidence determines whether I go to trial or not.”

While not all of Cacheris's clients have been famous, he has represented a number of people whose legal cases have been complicated by aggressive media coverage: “The biggest difference between high profile criminal defendants and those out of the limelight,” he says, “is that the press is hounding you constantly.  One has to be careful with what you say to the press.”

Today, Cacheris is a member of Trout Cacheris, PLLC, a major player in Washington D.C. in both criminal and civil litigation.  While retirement might be on the horizon for most octogenarian lawyers—or something they've been enjoying for years—Cacheris has told interviewers that he plans to continue working as an attorney for as long as the phone keeps ringing and clients keep coming through the door.

Arlington, VA—For David Oblon, named one of Washingtonian magazine's “Best Lawyers” a successful career in criminal law started with an economic choice—but his career soon blossomed into being something about much more than just making money.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“I'd love to say that criminal defense was my aspiration since watching Inherit the Wind, but unfortunately this is not true,” Oblon, who has now been a practicing lawyer in the Washington DC area for over 15 years, told laws.com in a recent interview.

Oblon began his career not as an attorney, but as a law clerk for a large antitrust law firm in Washington DC.  Going part time to law school in the evenings while holding down his full time firm job seemed like a great way to do what he was most passionate about: “I loved antitrust and trade regulation law.”

Just when it seemed like Oblon would work in antitrust for his whole career, a look at financial realities changed Oblon's path forever.  “I had been trained in law and economics.  While working on my monthly bills, it occurred to me that if I were in a law practice of my own and generated just a fraction of the work I was then doing, I could make a very good living.  This is economics 101!”

Instead of going to work for someone else's firm when he graduated law school, Oblon started his own practice with one partner.  At first, he wanted to practice antitrust law, but clients preferred to do business with attorneys at large firms who had handled a great deal of litigation.  “I began to get hungry, and, unwilling to admit defeat as always, I started seeking any legal work I could get.”

After signing up to be a court appointed attorney for indigent defendants, Oblon discovered he had a latent talent—criminal defense.  “I began getting very good results, and my appointed clients quickly began referring people they knew to me—people who could pay fees.” In addition to clients, other lawyers noticed Oblon.  He has been asked to teach law to other lawyers – and even judges – at continuing legal education programs multiple times a year for over a decade and a half.   

Today, Oblon's practice includes 13 total attorneys, and he now specializes in criminal defense.  Along the way, he's defended some major cases, including the first person to ever be charged with felony unlawful distribution of commercial e-mail.  “Since everyone hates spam—me included—the case made international news,” says Oblon.  “I learned to never give up, despite the courts, media, and e-mail users everywhere being critical.”

In Virginia, where Oblon practices, he says that sentencing guidelines have led to difficulties for clients who want to exercise their right to a jury trial.  “Judges in Virginia are required to consult sentencing guidelines—statistically average sentences—and if they decline to follow them, they have to give a written explanation.  Jurors are given no such guidance.  Therefore, the risk of a 'runaway' jury could result in considerably more incarceration for a defendant than if convicted by a judge alone through a plea.”

This, in turn, opens the door for abuse, according to Oblon.  “In the federal system, prosecutors can effectively leverage the sentencing guidelines to exact guilty pleas from people who otherwise want to go to trial.”  As an example, Oblon says to think about a defendant facing charges that would result in a long sentence if convicted, but then is offered a plea to a lesser crime.  “With the likelihood of much less or no incarceration, even the innocent person would rationally consider the plea bargain.”

To learn more about David Oblon please visit his official website https://www.albo-oblon.com.

Great progress has been made in the fight against domestic violence with the recent passage of  the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The reauthorization of this bill has been signed into law by President Obama earlier this month. It has also received bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has provided a comprehensive approach to tackling the issues of sexual and domestic violence. It established the National Domestic Violence Hotline and improved the response of the criminal justice system to the problem of domestic violence.  

In Oregon, sexual and domestic violence programs answered more than 175,000 calls for help in 2011. That same year, more than 5,000 women, men and children were sheltered. In addition, more than 27,000 victims of domestic violence received community-based support from different programs across the state.

The Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (OCADSV) was founded in 1978 to serve survivors of sexual and domestic violence. A non-profit, feminist organization, the OCADSV provides training, technical assistance and public education to crisis centers. It seeks to eliminate sexual and domestic violence through community engagement and survivor advocacy.  

The following is an interview with Debbie Fox, Development Director at the OCADSV, on the reauthorization of VAWA.

In your opinion, what does the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) mean for the women's rights movement?

I think the recent passage signifies the need for the current women's rights movement to continue educating our legislators and the public on how violence against women affects everyone. With 1 in 3 women affected by gendered violence, there should be no question that VAWA should be passed without controversy.

Do you think the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect women against sexual and domestic violence?

I believe the new version of VAWA goes further to protect ALL women who experience domestic violence but there is still limited funding to cover preventative measures that will get at the root causes of domestic violence in our society.  We need more prevention initiatives to address the core reasons why violence against women exists, and that is the oppression and systemic issues that exists in our society.

The new version of VAWA includes historic provisions for members of the LGBT community and Native American Women. Do you think this is a step in the right direction for LGBT people and Native American Women?

Yes, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 is a step in the right direction for American Indian women and LGBT people in the United States. According to Jodi Gillette, Senior Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs, and Charles Galbraith, Associate Director in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, “The new law…clarifies that tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction to provide Native American women the safety and security of protection orders. And the new law gives additional tools to federal prosecutors to combat severe cases of domestic violence.”[1]

Prior to passage of the law, the National Congress of American Indians reported on the proposed changes, “The constitutionally sound tribal jurisdiction provisions in VAWA authorize tribal governments to prosecute non-Indian defendants involved in intimate relationships with Native women and who assault these victims on tribal land.”[2]

On the other hand, Natalie Landreth, Staff Attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, argues that the law did not go far enough. She states,  “Nationwide, many celebrated the new provisions allowing tribal governments to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual assault. It was a long overdue fix for a jurisdictional loophole. However, VAWA contained a controversial provision that excluded Alaska Native tribes from the tribal jurisdiction provisions.”

For people who are LGBT, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund – with a broad-based coalition – worked for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the law. Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey says:

“This is a historic moment for our country. For the first time, this lifesaving law contains explicit protections for LGBT people. To be the target of domestic and sexual assault is terrifying and traumatic, and LGBT people are not immune from this violence. This inclusive Violence Against Women Act is critical to ensuring that the distress experienced by survivors of sexual violence is not compounded by a lack of proper response from service providers or law enforcement. We applaud all those who worked so hard to make sure no one was left behind in this law. We are proud to be a partner in this victory. Thousands of survivors of domestic and sexual violence will get the care they need because so many stood firm for what is right. This is a great day for America.”[3]

[1] Retrieved from the website for The White House at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/07/president-signs-2013-vawa-empowering-tribes-protect-native-women on March 31, 2013

[2] Retrieved from the website of the National Congress of American Indians at https://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2013/02/28/house-passes-violence-against-women-act on March 31, 2013

[3] Retrieved from the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at https://thetaskforceblog.org/2013/03/07/president-obama-signs-lgbt-inclusive-violence-against-women-act/ on April 1, 2013

What has your organization been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of domestic violence victims in Oregon?

Oregon has achieved many strides over the years, to passing landmark legislation to criminalize rape in marriage at the beginning of the violence against women's movement, to addressing systemic barriers that communities of color experience in Oregon.  The Oregon Coalition are statewide leaders in advancing  social change as necessary to end violence against women and children, as well as to end oppression of all people. The Coalition promotes the belief that all women have the inherent right to make their own decisions concerning lifestyles, sexuality, sexual orientation, education, employment, reproductive matters and spirituality. We are committed to supporting and involving underserved communities as well as upholding standards for anti-racism work in Oregon.

Do you believe Oregon has come a long way since the initial passage of VAWA in 1994?

Yes, we have made huge strides in addressing this long hidden issues in all communities in Oregon, from rural to the urban centers.  We have a comprehensive networks of crisis and advocacy centers that help women and children heal from the abuse they have experienced.  We have a statewide safety net across the state that didn't exist with federal support before the passing of VAWA.

If you are in a domestic violence situation, please contact the OCADSV for help. For more information on domestic violence, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed with Debbie Fox of the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Portland, Oregon

The Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized and signed into law, signifying a huge step forward for victims of sexual and domestic violence all over the United States. The Violence Against Women Act provides funding for the training of over 500,000 prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers annually so that they are better able to respond to the victims of sexual and domestic violence.  In addition to re-establishing the older provisions pertaining to intimate partner violence, it provides newly established legal protections for Native American women.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

The importance of the new provisions for Native American women in the new VAWA cannot be overstated. Native American women suffer the highest rate of sexual and domestic violence of any racial group in the country. They are the victims of sexual assault or rape at a rate that is double that of any other group. It is estimated that Native American women suffer violent crime at a rate three and half times higher than the national average. This problem was compounded by the fact that, before the new provisions in VAWA, confusion about tribal and federal jurisdiction meant that the courts and police tended to ignore domestic violence cases that involved Native Americans, and what was worst, was the fact that when the perpetrator was not Native American yet committed the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts did not have the power to prosecute him. 80 percent of  violence experienced by Native American women was committed by a non-Native.

Mending the Sacred Hoop started with a Native American women’s support and advocacy group for the survivors of domestic violence founded in the 1980s in Duluth, Minnesota. It initially began as a Native program under the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, but became an independent Native owned and operated non-profit organization in 2006. It works both locally in Minnesota and provides valuable technical assistance and training to Native American communities nationally.

The following is an interview with Holly Oden of Mending the Sacred Hoop on her opinion regarding the recent reauthorization of VAWA and the historic provisions it includes for Native American women, and the work of her organization in the realm of domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) signify for the women's rights movement?

The recent passage of the VAWA can be viewed as a statement on the status of women in this country in that intimate partner violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are predominantly crimes against women. Nationally, over 85% of domestic assault victims are women (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence: 1993); almost one-third of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: 2001) – for Native American/Alaska Native women this statistic is 31%; 1 in 6 women report that they have experienced sexual assault (for Native American/Alaska Native women the rate is 1 in 3), as opposed to 1 in 33 men nationwide. The recent passage of the VAWA recognizes the gendered nature of the violence – women in this country are victimized because they are women.

With the newly added provisions for Native American Women, do you believe VAWA goes far enough to protect Native American women against domestic violence?

Prior to the passage of the Act (through, primarily, Supreme Court decisions), tribes had no authority to criminally prosecute non-Native offenders who committed crimes within the tribe's jurisdiction. Essentially, if a non-Native man committed domestic assault against his Native wife, girlfriend, significant other, the tribe had no criminal authority to charge, prosecute (and in many cases even arrest and hold) the non-Native person committing the criminal act within the tribe's jurisdiction. Keep in mind that a high number of non-Native people live in tribal communities (upwards of 85% in some communities) and also, that for Native women nationally, the rates of assault are 3 times higher than for women of other races. Additionally, the majority of those committing crimes against Native women are of another race (over 80% of violence experienced by Native Americans is committed by persons not of the same race – American Indians and Crime Report & Homicide: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Crime Statistics: 1999). This year, in signing the VAWA reauthorization with the Tribal provisions intact, Congress has essentially "fixed" tribal jurisdiction over the crime of domestic assault. The VAWA still needs to be funded in order to implement certain of its provisions. This is of particular importance regarding tribal authority to criminally prosecute domestic assaults, as many tribes, particularly in Public Law 280 states, do not have tribal criminal courts. The VAWA will make funding available to develop tribal courts with the ability to prosecute these crimes.

What are some of the unique obstacles and challenges facing Native American domestic violence victims?

In common with non-Native victims of domestic violence, Native victims of such violence face obstacles and challenges to safety that are particular to the community in which they live and are victimized. For example, if the community is rural, isolated, small and strongly inter-connected, this can be a great barrier to the victim in seeking cessation of the violence and safety for herself and her children. If the community has no response or a poor response to domestic assault this directly impacts her ability to report. If there are no services in place (shelter, for instance) her safety is severely compromised. If she must seek safety by leaving her community, she is impacted on many levels: loss of supportive family members and friends, loss of housing, children uprooted from their friends, school, and activities, and she also faces economic impacts.

Some barriers specific to Native American/Alaska Native women who are being battered in Tribal communities may include: 1) Jurisdictional issues – where the crime takes place: is it reservation land, trust land, is the reservation a checkerboard reservation? Additionally, who responds to the crime is still based upon an assessment of the race of the victim and the race of the offender; 2) Lack of infrastructure: Tribal communities are the poorest communities in the U.S. – the lack of response is directly due to lack of resources for response; 3) Isolation – in some Native villages in Alaska (very remote, very isolated), state troopers can take up to three days to arrive.

In urban communities, racism is a factor both in the violence perpetrated against Native women as well as the criminal justice response to the victimization. For instance, if a Native woman calls to report a domestic assault, and is “known” to the responding officers, she is more likely to be seen as the offender (even if her husband, boyfriend, significant other has a history of domestic assault); Native women are more likely to be seen as violent. Additionally, Native women are the most victimized by sexual assault (and they also are more likely to report); however, the rate of prosecution of sexual assault of Native women is very low (non-existent in some urban communities) and can be traced back to stereotypes about Native women – that they are alcoholics, for example – and “victim-credibility” – because she is a Native woman, she is not a credible victim.

The history of colonization and the generational trauma experienced by many Native people (forced removal of both children and communities – boarding schools, removal to reservations, to name two), as well as multiple victimizations over a lifetime create great barriers to Native women seeking safety from intimate partner violence. This history also has created a well-placed distrust of systems and an unwillingness to report to systems (the removal of children, forced sterilization) – Native women currently have their children removed and placed in foster care at very high rates – repeating the historical trauma of their grandparents and parents being forced into boarding schools.

What has your organization been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of Native American domestic violence victims?

Mending the Sacred Hoop works to keep the voices of Native women survivors fully heard in the work to address violence against women. We began our criminal justice intervention efforts locally in 1993, working to change the way the criminal justice system and service providers in northern Minnesota responded to Native women experiencing domestic violence. We have worked nationally with tribes across the nation since 1995, when the newly created Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) approached us to provide training and technical assistance to Office on Violence tribal grantees working to address violence against women in their communities.  In 2006, MSH started a state-wide organizing effort through the Sacred Hoop Domestic Violence Coalition, keeping the voices of Native women at the forefront of the work to address domestic violence. We have also worked over the years to educate our own Duluth, MN community on violence against Native women issues, provide mentoring for batterer intervention program group facilitators, and have conducted Safety and Accountability Audits of the institutional response to Native women who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault in order to change/enhance the response.

Mending the Sacred Hoop has worked to organize community responses to violence against women to ensure that Native women have equal access to safety and services. We work from a grass-roots level, utilizing the strengths of community in confronting and challenging myths and stereotypes that are a significant factor in the response of systems to violence against Native women.

The initial passage of VAWA did help many domestic violence victims, but it is safe to say that, for the most part, Native American domestic violence victims living on reservations have been left out of that progress because of legal loopholes. With the newly added provisions, are you optimistic about the future for Native American domestic violence victims?

I am optimistic about the future of our Nations to end violence against women and to restore the sacred status of women. Violence against women is not a part of our culture; this violence is a by-product of colonization efforts that diminished the status of Native women and children. The use of violence to maintain power while defining women and children as property created a framework for the domestic violence and sexual assault that occurs in our communities today. In other words, violence against women was a forced import; it came from outside the community, the tribe, and is directly antithetical to tribal life ways and values. The majority of tribes hold beliefs around the status of women: that women are sacred, and to harm a woman is to harm the community. In the context of this belief system, violence against women such as domestic and sexual assault are therefore particularly unthinkable acts. It is within our ability to reclaim these teachings, values and life ways and to end violence against Native women.

I am also optimistic because Native women were organizing to address violence against women for many years prior to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994; organizing efforts by Native women spearheaded addressing domestic violence as a social issue, rather than just a relationship issue. The passage of the first VAWA provided funding that supported these efforts and allowed for tribal program capacity building in providing services; however, organizing efforts and services to victims in tribal communities preceded the passage of the Act, and the Tribal provisions in the current VAWA that restore Tribes’ ability to criminally prosecute the criminal act of domestic assault are in place because of the organizing efforts of Native women.

For more information on Mending the Sacred Hoop and violence against Native Women, please visit their page. You can learn more by visiting the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed with Holly Oden of Mending the Sacred Hoop, Duluth, Minnesota

On February 28, the House of Representative passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) by a vote of 286 to 136. VAWA was then signed into law on March 7, marking a huge step forward for victims of domestic violence all over the country. This new legislation, which was initially drafted by then Senator Joe Biden in 1994 and enacted the same year, is more powerful because it both expands and creates federal programs that help victims of domestic violence.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Domestic violence is an issue among all racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Statistically, Asian and Pacific Islander women experience lower rates of sexual and domestic violence than women of other racial groups. However, this may not truly reflect reality, as this may actually be due to underreporting by Asian and Pacific Islander women experiencing domestic violence. One national study found  that 12.8 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander women experienced physical assault at least once in their lifetime. However, community-based studies of Asian women, estimate a lifetime prevalence rate of 41%-61%. The Project AWARE (Asian Women Advocating Respect and Empowerment)  study on types of domestic violence found that more than 81 percent of a representative sample of Asian women experienced some form of intimate partner violence in the past year, be that psychological or physical.

The Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence (API Institute) is a national resource center that deals with domestic violence within the Asian and Pacific Islander communities. It works to eliminate violence against women in these communities through research, policy advocacy and technical assistance and training.

The following is an interview with Chic Dabby, Director of the API Institute, in which she shares her views on the recent reauthorization of VAWA, and the work of the API Institute to combat domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) signify for the women's rights movement?

The women’s movement has successfully focused public and governmental attention on issues affecting and abrogating women’s rights – and, domestic violence is one of them.  The first bill to address domestic violence, the Family Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA) was authorized in 1984 and continues to be the federal government’s only funding source directly dedicated to domestic violence shelters and services.  A full decade later, the Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994; and both bills have been reauthorized subsequently.  Such landmark legislation translates into federal and state support to prevent violence against women and other victims, and provide services for them, and are having an impact.  As Vice President Biden (who, as Senator, authored VAWA in 1994) reminds us, domestic violence has gone down 60% between 1993 and 2010.  The recent passage of VAWA signifies eventual bipartisan support for the bill’s new and vital protections for immigrant women, tribal women and the LGBTQ community – crafted by advocates and championed by both parties.  The national mobilization this took reflects the strategic advantages of a unified women’s rights movement that represents the interests of multiple identity groups and communities.             

Do you believe the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect women against domestic violence?

Legislative remedies generally develop in response to identified trends and issues.  For example, VAWA, expanded from protections for the crime of domestic violence to include sexual assault, stalking and dating violence because the data indicated that these were significant national trends.  In the new version of VAWA, among many important provisions, three were critical – jurisdictional issues for Native women, unequivocal inclusion for LGBTQ individuals, and expanded protections for immigrant women. At the end of the day, legislative protection can only go so far; changing cultures and communities that devalue and oppress women is what prevents domestic violence.

What are some of the unique obstacles and challenges facing Asian domestic violence victims in the United States?

Trends like transnational abandonment, threats of deportation, forced marriage, and custody battles that deny battered mothers custody and even access to their children pose unique obstacles/challenges to Asian women.  In addition, their immigration status is used by batterers as one of the tactics of domestic violence and coercive control – this includes documented women who fall out of status because their abusers do not take steps to regularize it; or the difficulty of implementing protections for Asian women with an H-4 dependent visa who become domestic violence victims. Inadequate language access, anti-immigrant  policies, gender bias in family court, and racism pose system barriers.

What has your organization been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of Asian domestic violence victims?

The achievements of the Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence include: [1] Increasing the provision of culturally relevant, trauma-informed services through training and technical assistance, in community-based-organizations and systems to address the unique dynamics and trends of domestic violence in Asian homes, through training and technical assistance. [2] Influencing systems change through research on critical issues such as domestic violence related homicides affecting Asian women and children to shape homicide prevention policies. [3] Addressing the unmet needs of sub-groups within a large, heterogeneous Asian population by working with national partners and community experts to develop materials such as the Islamic Marriage Contracts: A Resource Guide for Legal Professionals, Advocates, Imams & Communities. [4] Promoting language access for domestic and sexual violence victims with limited English proficiency.  [5] Collaborating with multiple federal agencies to address violence against Asian women and girls by recommending interventions and policies on unique trends and issues that affect Asian victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and other forms of gender-based violence.

Do you believe the Asian American community has come a long way since the initial passage of VAWA in 1994?

Yes. In fact, a core group of mostly Asian advocates and attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area crafted the immigrant battered women’s provisions in that first bill – evidence of Asian American leadership that has continued throughout subsequent reauthorizations.  Domestic violence continues to be a central focus of activism in Asian communities – women and men have organized to counter the extent and depth of the problem, evidenced by approximately 120 programs in the country designed by Asian advocates.  Cultural change in all communities will be a perpetual mission: Asian community-based-organizations are attempting to integrate the principles of gender equality into all types of projects, on the principle that domestic violence or gender parity is not just a women’s issue, only located in women’s programs.  The pathways to divesting from gender violence and investing in gender democracy are daunting but Asian victims/survivors, activists and advocates continue to build and strengthen them.

If you or someone you know is in a domestic violence situation, please contact the API Institute for help. To learn more about domestic violence, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed by Chic Dabby of the Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, San Francisco, California

President Obama recently signed the reauthorization of the the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law. This is a huge step forward for all victims of sexual and domestic violence across the country. This new legislation is better than the 1994 version because it both expands and creates federal programs that help victims of sexual and domestic violence. It is important to note that although it is called the Violence Against Women Act, men are covered under this legislation.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

The Violence Against Women Act established a national hotline that anyone – women, men, gay or straight – can call if they find themselves in a domestic violence situation. The new version of VAWA goes even further by having historic provisions to protect members of the LGBT community and Native American women.

The murder trial of Jodi Arias serves as a reminder that men, just like women, can be and are also victims of domestic violence. One in fourteen has been assaulted by a partner, either current or former, at some point in their lives. Annually, more than 835,000 men are victims of domestic violence. In 2004, more than 5 percent of male homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner.

The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women (DAHMW) is a national nonprofit domestic violence organization. It specializes in offering supportive services to men who are abused by their female partners. The DAHMW is working to eliminate domestic violence through education and community collaboration. Although the DAHMW specializes in supporting men who were victims of female abusers, women and members of the LGBT community are offered the same help and support if they seek the assistance of the DAHMW.

The following is an interview with Jan Brown, Founder and Executive Director of the DAHMW, on her views about the reauthorization of VAWA, and the work of the DAHMW to help end domestic violence.

In your opinion, what does the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) mean for victims of domestic violence?

The changes made to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was signed into law in March 2013, signifies that, we as a country, are moving towards a more enlightened and realistic view of domestic violence. The nondiscrimination clause included in VAWA 2013 recognizes that anyone, whether male or female, heterosexual, gay or transgender, can be a victim/survivor of domestic violence in need of support and services. I am in hopes that, over time, this will mean an end to the discriminatory practices that have been used in the past, practices which have left underserved victims without the necessary tools to escape violent intimate relationships.

Do you believe the new version of VAWA goes far enough to protect men against domestic violence?

I believe that the new version goes far enough to protect gay and transgender (MTF/FMT) men in abusive relationships. It's widely accepted that domestic violence occurs in gay relationships as frequently as in heterosexual relationships.  

The new version of VAWA has the capacity to protect heterosexual men against domestic violence. However, it will take more than a nondiscrimination clause and opening up funding to under served populations to address the issue of female on male violence.  

For more than four decades battered women's advocates and the media (via battered women's advocates) has defined domestic violence as, violence against women…by men.  Our society has been led to believe that the most prevalent cause of domestic violence is men's patriarchal need to oppress, dominate and control women.  

This may have been the case decades ago, however, society has changed a great deal since the advent of the battered women's movement.  Women's roles have also changed tremendously due to the laudable and courageous efforts of women's rights activists.

However, as long as battered women's advocates continue to downplay and minimize male victimization and women's violence e.g. women use violence to defend themselves etc., society will continue to believe the, "women are victims-men are perpetrators" mantra and little will change.

The 2006 version of VAWA included a provision in Section 3 regarding nonexclusivity/nondiscrimination to wit;

"(8) NONEXCLUSIVITY.—Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title." (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf)  

Shortly after VAWA was reauthorized in 2006 The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women published a paper on, "Frequently Asked Questions About VAWA and Gender."  https://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf  In that paper they stated that nothing in the Act (VAWA) denies services, programs, funding, or assistance to male victims of violence.  

However, my condensed version of what the paper is actually saying is that women suffer more negative consequences from domestic violence (no doubt), male victims of female violence are as rare as a sunflower in the desert and intimate partner violence against men is overwhelming committed by male perpetrators (they state this last one in the paper).   https://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf

Since the passage of VAWA 2006, IMHO, little has changed with regards to supportive services for male victims. The nondiscrimination clause in VAWA 2013 is much more strongly worded than the nonexculsivity clause in VAWA 2006.  Hopefully the new provision will make a difference.  

Do you believe there are enough services available to cater to the specific needs of male victims of domestic violence?

Not at the present time.  Male victims need much the same services as their female counterparts, support, legal aid, safe housing, counseling etc. I have made hundreds of calls over the past twelve years to domestic violence shelter programs across the country on behalf of heterosexual and gay male victims who call our helpline seeking supportive services. Approximately 90% of the shelter programs I called advised me that they didn't help men.  Many told me that men rarely call their hotline (for women) or that when men did call they referred them out to the local homeless shelter or batterer's intervention program.

Most programs that do offer services to both female and male victims offer only limited services e.g. phone support, one on one counseling and assistance with filing restraining orders, to male victims.  

What has the DAHMW been able to achieve in terms of advancing the cause of male domestic violence victims?

Singularly and in collaboration with researchers and others who work in the domestic violence field DAHMW has been able to bring more awareness to the issues that male victims face. We have achieved this through studies focused on male victims and presentations at universities and domestic violence conferences.

Further, although we do not get any of the state and federal funding that traditional domestic violence victims’ service programs receive, we have been able to help some male victims with temporary shelter, food, clothing, bus tickets etc.  

As a society, do you think we have come far since the first passage of VAWA in 1994?

We have come a long way in stopping violence against women by men but there is so much more to do if we ever hope to end all domestic violence.

If you are a man or woman facing domestic violence, please contact DAHMW for help. For more information on domestic violence, please visit the Domestic Violence Page.

Interviewed with Jan Brown of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men & Women, Harmony, Maine

Alexandria, VA—For Christopher Leibig, a practicing attorney in the state of Virginia since 1996, a career in criminal defense started with clambering onto a roof.  

Leibig explains: “The summer after my first year of law school I got a job as an investigator for the Public Defender Service in Washington, D.C..  My second or third day on the job, my boss asked me to climb onto a row-house,” to see if police officers could really have seen a drug deal.  The police's eyewitness view of the drug deal was the biggest piece of testimony against the defendant, so Leibig was shocked when he climbed the house and discovered that the officers couldn't possibly have seen what they claimed to.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“A few days after I testified at a jury trial about it … after that, I knew I wanted to be a public defender.”  After serving indigent defendants as a public defender for six years, Leibig switched to private criminal defense practice.

The types of evidence being used in criminal trials today are changing with new technologies, and Leibig has kept up.  He has been actively involved in litigation about warrantless tracking with GPS technologies, and has taken classes about DNA and other scientific topics at the Forensic Science Master’s Program at George Washington University.

Even with these new technologies though, Leibig believes that “many cases turn on the same things they ever have: what happened, and why, and a lot of those questions will always be about emotions and not science.”

With his increasing name recognition in the Northern Virginia area, Leibig attempts to keep his volume low. .  “I think it's important not to make yourself too busy,” he says.  “You have to learn to turn cases away so the people you do represent get enough of your time".

Handling cases that are followed closely by the press can create challenges for defense attorneys, according to Leibig.  “Those cases put everyone, including prosecutors and judges, under a different sort of pressure.  As a defense attorney, the main thing is to never do anything that is not strategically designed to help your client.”

In addition to new technologies, Leibig says that criminal defense work is heavily affected by   the increase of mandatory minimum sentences.  “Lots of pleas happen because the laws force the client to risk too much to go to trial,” he says.  “This is the problem with mandatory minimums, the fact that juries are not allowed to know how harsh the punishment will be when they are deliberating about someone’s guilt or innocence.”  Because of these sentencing rules, for many criminal defendants, a guilty plea can be the only decision that makes sense from a risk avoidance perspective.

Perhaps it was his start as a public defender that makes him more sympathetic to certain kinds of cases, but Leibig doesn't necessarily demand that every single client have enough money to afford his services.  “A few times a year I will meet a client who I want to represent even if they can't come close to affording it,” he says.  “Sometimes you just see a case and think, if I'm not gonna do this, why am I even a lawyer?”

For more information about the Law Offices of Christopher Leibig, see www.chrisleibiglaw.com.