#4: The Prosecutor (with Kathleen Nolan)
Content note: This episode includes discussion of child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, child death and homicide investigations, abusive head trauma, autopsy and forensic evidence, child sexual abuse material, and human trafficking. Subscribe on Spotify | View full transcript
What does a child abuse prosecutor actually do—and what happens when the people who train them start disappearing? In this episode of Season One: The Multidisciplinary Team, Robert sits down with longtime colleague Kathleen Nolan, an Illinois prosecutor who has spent two decades handling child abuse, child torture, and child homicide cases, to talk about the realities behind the case file and the courtroom.
Kathleen came to prosecution by way of insurance defense, where she tried about 40 jury trials in her first year and a half. She has since tried close to 100, prosecuted child abuse at the county and state levels in Illinois, and spent four years training prosecutors and MDTs across the country before returning to the courtroom full time in 2025.
The conversation starts with misconceptions. Kathleen pushes back on the idea that prosecutors are inexperienced short-timers and explains why law school teaches almost nothing about DNA, digital forensics, or autopsies. She also walks through what MDT partners often misunderstand about continuances, lab backlogs, and how little control prosecutors have once a case is charged. She and Robert take on the "he said, she said" myth, the difference between believing a child and being able to prove a case, and why waiting to charge is sometimes the right call.
From there, they move into the hardest cases Kathleen has tried. She describes why child homicide prosecutions so often leave the victim's side of the courtroom empty, what she learned from attending infant autopsies, the trial X-ray that made a juror break down, and why defense experts are now the rule rather than the exception in abusive head trauma cases. They also discuss the grant cuts that drove experienced trainers out of the field, prosecuting through COVID with masked jurors seated behind her, and the new generation of prosecutors coming in.
Whether you're a prosecutor, an MDT member who works alongside one, or someone who has only seen the job on Law & Order: SVU, this episode offers a candid look at the skill, discretion, and ethical weight behind charging decisions in the cases that matter most.
About our guest
Kathleen Nolan is a Special Prosecutor with the Illinois State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor and a content developer for Coursing Justice. She previously spent over four years as a Senior Attorney with the Zero Abuse Project, traveling nationally as a subject matter expert in child abuse litigation.
Kathleen's extensive prosecutorial career includes serving as Chief of the Children’s Justice Division in Madison County, managing sexually violent predator commitments for the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, and handling child abuse and juvenile cases in Tazewell County. A dedicated advocate and trainer, she has educated multidisciplinary teams and served on the Southern Illinois Child Death Investigation Task Force. Kathleen holds a JD from Valparaiso University School of Law.
Key moments
2:00 — Ghosts at the CAC: a haunted basement crime scene and the case for a ghost-story podcast
6:30 — From insurance defense to child abuse prosecution, and 40 jury trials in 18 months
10:30 — The first guilty verdict: "There is nothing better than that"
13:30 — Why she left prosecution in 2021 and came back in 2025
16:00 — Grant cuts and the exodus of trainers: "That's not a partisan issue, that's a public safety issue"
17:30 — Public misconceptions: career prosecutors and "the best trial lawyers in the country"
22:30 — Life as a rural prosecutor: two Subways, cease-and-desists, and a death threat
28:30 — "Justice, not just convict": the dual ethical duty and why prosecutor pay matters
33:30 — What MDT partners misunderstand: continuances, DNA backlogs, and who controls the timeline
38:45 — "Our criminal justice system is not trauma informed"
40:00 — Belief vs. evidence: corroborating children's statements and when to wait to charge
45:30 — Truth stranger than fiction: the judge who sentenced a defendant, then officiated his wedding
50:00 — Child homicide prosecution: mothers as perpetrators and an empty side of the courtroom
52:00 — Baby autopsies, skeletal remains, and the X-ray that made a juror cry
57:45 — Defense experts in abusive head trauma cases: "only controversial in the courtroom"
1:02:30 — Smoke and mirrors: an overturned conviction that had nothing to do with the science
1:04:30 — Prosecuting through COVID: Zoom court, masked jurors, and kids who fell off the grid
1:11:00 — Mock crime scenes, a four-homicide simulation, and too much fake blood
Mentioned in this episode
Hero's Haven Child Advocacy Center — Clarksburg, West Virginia, led by Patty Saunders
Lighthouse Child Advocacy Center — Susan Scharf, director and mock crime scene volunteer
Dr. Michael Bourke — wellness for investigators exposed to CSAM
Shield Task Force — Robert's prevention nonprofit
Want to learn more?
Join our free Justice in 30 webinar series.
Explore our training catalog. Kathleen offers several trainings on trial strategy and skills, child death, abusive head trauma, and MDT collaboration.
Invest in a CaseReady MDT training simulation. This gives your MDT the chance to work a simulated case together, from first response to charging decisions, so the hard conversations about roles, timing, and communication happen outside the pressure of an active case.
Episode Transcript
*** Please note that this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors.
[00:00:00] it is just an indisputable fact that our criminal justice system is not trauma informed. No. Period, end of sentence.
there are many times in my child death cases where our side of the room has been empty, you know? That the support has been for perpetrator and not necessarily for the child.
That's not a partisan issue, that's a public safety issue.
when they come off that witness stand after testifying, they're on top of the world because something really bad has happened to them, but they've now been able to sit and face that person and, and do it.
I may have higher paying jobs, I may have more, visible, respected jobs, but I'll never have a more important job ever again in my life than child abuse prosecution."
Welcome to Coursing Justice, the podcast. I'm your host, Robert Peters, nonprofit executive, former prosecutor, and founder of Coursing Justice. We're a consortium of passionate current and former law [00:01:00] enforcement prosecutors and CAC MDT members bringing our skills to serve the field through innovative training and practical content for justice and child protection professionals.
For more information on training and consultation, including our free monthly webinar series, Justice in 30, visit our website www.coursingjustice.com It's my privilege today to introduce a longtime colleague and co-belligerent perhaps, Kathleen Nolan. Kathleen is a prosecutor in the great state of Illinois.
She began prosecuting and has been involved in the prosecution of child abuse since 2006. And Kathleen has a focus on some of the, the darkest and most horrific crimes imaginable. And so she has extensive experience in child homicides, child torture cases. She's one of my favorite colleagues ever in our time together at Zero Abuse Project.
But despite that close professional history I do have to I think as an obligation, banter at [00:02:00] least briefly about ghosts in order to secure her participation here today. So Kathleen, welcome to Coursing Justice, and I'm obviously starting where I must start, with ghosts. A- as where any conversation about prosecution starts, ghosts.
But I do like that you acknowledge that I am your favorite colleague and coworker. So now that that's recorded and documented, I'm not sure this is under oath, but I feel like it's pretty binding. It feels that way. It feels that way. Well, let's, let's talk a little bit about ghosts. We, we have long talked about potentially launching a podcast on ghosts and CACs.
And we had the privilege of hosting you in the, in my home state where I prosecute in West Virginia. And you, you ran into a few, or, or so the tale goes. I think that's where our conversation about the potential podcast started, was at Heroes Haven in West Virginia. And there are definitely some experiences that were had in this old [00:03:00] creepy basement that we also had set up as a murder crime scene.
So maybe that is what enticed the ghost to, to come out and communicate. But yeah, I mean, we then were talking just about this creepy basement, and just various and assorted strange movings and happenings. And that started then the other CAC staff members talking about their experiences and the things that they had felt.
I think most of what they were talking about surrounded an elevator, like an old elevator shaft that would, you know, go up and down, and buttons would get hit on their own. But they were sharing their experiences about being kind of in this older building where their CAC was housed and experiencing kind of ghosts and energy.
And we've then since talked to other Folks at different CACs, I mean, across the country who also immediately are like, "Let me tell you about my ghost story at my child advocacy center." And yeah, I mean, I think it would make a great podcast just because [00:04:00] there seems to be so many people that have had those experiences.
And also, I mean, people like to hear ghost stories. But it would also be educational in that, you know, we would be able to kind of use something that's, you know, pop culture popular, but then educate about what child advocacy centers do, and the staff and the involvement. Because I think a lot of people don't know, I mean, a lot of our general public don't know what our child advocacy centers do, which is why you doing this podcast series is so great.
But- You know, most or a lot of them are housed in older buildings and, you know, places that might have a history to begin with. But then if you think about what we're doing in a child advocacy center and in a forensic interview, it's a lot of energy and a lot of emotions and, you know, a lot of things that are, you know, being done and said that, you know, if you, if you believe in the, the spiritual world and the afterlife, that those are kinds of things that get your ghostly activity going.
[00:05:00] So yeah, I think it would be great. Regardless, it would make for a great podcast series. I, hey, I mean, I think so, but what do I know? I'm just a prosecutor. Well, there were, there are some wild tales that we've heard across the United States. This is shocking to me. I knew of some, you know, local, local tales in prosecution.
I had no idea this is a thing that apparently happens in quite a few places. But, you know, stories of kids stopping doing forensic interviews because they watch, they see something walk through a wall. These are legitimately, you know, things that have been observed at CACs, which is wild to me. Well, and remember we were ta- So we were in Huntsville, Alabama, and we were talking to some forensic interviewers from Indiana, and they were talking about some of their experiences.
And then, like, a week later, that same interviewer texted me and was like, "Hey, remember when we were talking about it?" That day, someone was at their center, like, in that, like, same hour, and had experienced, you know, like, voices and movement and talking, like, while we were talking about it across the [00:06:00] country.
So obviously there's something there. Well- The Ghost Squad: The Podcast. Give the ghosts what they want. Gotta give the, the ghosts what they want. Absolutely. Well, now that we have firmly established our professional credentials and our, our firm rooting in peer-reviewed evidence-based approaches, let's delve into our actual professional work which is prosecution.
So back in, let's rewind back to 2006. Did you go by Kathleen in 2006? Yes. Okay. I have always been Kathleen in a professional capacity. Outstanding. I, I made a rough transition because this podcast is distributed, I won't say what my name was prior to Robert. But I had a rough transition mid-law school, so unfortunately, you know, many are aware of, of past names that are less cool.
But oh well. I- in any event, what led Kathleen in 2006 to look at prosecution and say, "That's what I wanna do?" You know, is that... Did you sense at that time where it's like, "This is my career, I'm planting my flag," or not so much? Not [00:07:00] really. So it, my undergrad degree was in political science and public administration, and I actually wanted to go into, like, campaign work and campaign management.
That was my kind of initial thought. And I did some campaign work in college, and it wasn't for me. And so then it was like, well, what do I do with this, you know, like, bachelor's degree from a liberal arts college? And law school just kind of seemed to be a good transition. And I actually, I graduated in 2004 and I did insurance defense litigation in Downtown Chicago for a couple years.
And I did that because I had wanted to go into prosecution. You know, after being in law school I knew I wanted to do trial work, and so I applied to the Cook County State's Attorney's office, got through a couple rounds and got to kind of the who-do-you-know round, and I didn't really know anybody.
Surprisingly, Chicago's a little nepotistic, but, Yeah ... so I, I still needed a job. Law school loan forgiveness did not exist then, and I had a lot of loans. So, you know, I couldn't just take a gap year. [00:08:00] So yeah, I mean, I needed a job, and so I ended up doing, again, insurance defense litigation, which ultimately worked out amazing.
I had about 40 jury trials in the first, like, year and a half, and they were all, you know, six-person juries for, you know, kind of stuff that didn't really matter. So it was great to, like, get my skills sort of honed in that space, where it was- Yeah ... you know, a rear-end car accident, and I could get all, you know, the dumb things out in front of juries.
I still did a lot of dumb things, but you know, I had a little bit of a, a easing-in period. But I still wanted to be a prosecutor, and then that was what I wanted to do. So essentially, I sent resumes kind of across the state of Illinois. You know, I pulled up different counties, different areas, and just sent out resumes.
And I got a call from a county, kind of a smaller, rural county in Central Illinois, and they made me an offer. I was at a point where- An offer you couldn't refuse ... I, I mean, it was definitely appealing. It was something I wanted [00:09:00] to do, and it was in the, like, juvenile abuse and neglect docket which was something that I didn't know a ton about, but was absolutely, you know, willing to jump in.
And again, at the time, a lot of my, you know, friends from college that lived in the city with me, people were kind of moving out and starting families, and it just kind of seemed like a good time to move from Downtown Chicago to Central Illinois. So, that's how I got into prosecution and into the child abuse world, and I never really looked back.
And listener that number may not jump out to you, the 40 jury trials bit, but you'll be hard-pressed to find attorneys now, you know, in the year 2026, that have 40 jury trials. That's pretty rare. So that, that is an incredible initial experience to iron out so many of those litigation skills, so. And maybe just a point of- I probably should have kept better track.
I think I'm probably approaching 100 at this point. Wow. Yeah, that, that, that is pretty unheard of. I mean, you, you could m- maybe find a [00:10:00] few, a few, a few individuals that have, that have accomplished that. But it, it's rare these days just with what things look like from plea perspectives and turnover in the field, et cetera.
It's pretty rare that you have that, that type of expertise still around. Was there a moment just as you said, you, you didn't initially have that sense of, "This is my thing." Did, did that ever arise? Like, was there ever a moment, or did, is it just you loved it and just keep, keep loving it? I, I think the first guilty verdict on a child abuse case- There it is
was probably that of, like, there is ... A- and I still say, like, there is nothing better than that. You know, that- Yeah ... that moment, the moments leading up to it when, you know- Oh ... the jury's holding that paperwork and they're getting settled in and- You're just sick ... you know, like, ugh. It, it's, that's the worst.
Like, literally the worst ever. But there's nothing like that moment where that verdict is starting to be read and you hear [00:11:00] the guilty. That, I, I think the first time I heard that, you know, there is, there is nothing else that I was going to want to do afterwards. And, and I still say and I still believe that this is the best job in the world, that it is hard, we don't get paid well the hours are terrible.
It has a huge mental strain, physical impact. You know, all of those things. But, you know, just the ability to go into a courtroom and, you know, particularly on these cases, to be advocating and standing up for those that can't advocate or stand up for themselves. But also then, you know, giving those kids and families that agency to go in and stand up for themselves.
And I, I don't know, we might get to this at some point, but, you know, every single child that I've ever had come into court, whether it's the little five-year-olds, you know, all the way up to the adults, when they come off that witness stand after testifying, they're on top of the world because something really bad [00:12:00] has happened to them, but they've now been able to sit and face that person and, and do it.
And, you know, even on some tough cross-examinations where I've been like, "Oof," those kids still come out of that courtroom absolutely feeling like they have stood up for themselves. And when we can facilitate that and make that happen and get the right result at the end, it truly is, it's amazing. I mean, it's the best.
And the fact that, you know, we can do that every day as a job is incredible. And, and that's not to say that there aren't days that just don't absolutely, like, break your heart and destroy all faith in humanity. But- ... there are then those moments that it's just like, this is, this is why we do this, and this is why this work matters so much.
Yes, there is absolutely no higher high. There is also absolutely no lower low on those aforementioned days, and what an incredibly rewarding work. One of, one of my mentors [00:13:00] o- over the years who, who initially pointed me towards prosecution, Boz Tchividjian, you know, talked about the day that he left prosecution, and he, I think he was commenting to his wife, I may have higher paying jobs, I may have more, visible, respected jobs, but I'll never have a more important job ever again in my life than child abuse prosecution."
So absolutely. So you had a, a hiatus from prosecution while you were training at the national level, law enforcement prosecutors, multidisciplinary teams across the United States. Definitely wanna get to that later in our conversation. Why return to prosecution at that point? I- so I, I left full-time prosecution in, in 2021, and I came back in October of 2025.
So it was about four years. And a- at the time that I left, I did, I needed a break. I needed to step back a little bit. I needed to be able to have a little bit of, like, mental head [00:14:00] space time. This is, again, it's a tough job. And I also love that we talk about the mental health aspect of this job now- Yes
instead of just, like, pushing it down and ignoring it. So that was part of the reason, like, why I stepped away at the time. And also at the time I had said I'd be okay never trying a case again. And as I did the work in the training space I loved it. I mean, I absolutely loved getting out, helping prosecutors giving them skills and tools to be able to do this great work.
But I, I did hit a point where then I started to miss it, and I also started seeing how much of a need there was for prosecutors in the courtroom that know child abuse cases. We saw a huge exodus of really MDT members across the board in COVID. You know- Mm ... a lot of people left, a lot of people took early retirement.
A lot of really experienced prosecutors left the field. And I, I was starting to see the impacts [00:15:00] of that on a national level, but also, too, in, you know, my home state of Illinois. And kind of started to see that, you know, maybe I wasn't done and maybe I needed to get back into the courtroom. But also there was the very real issue of funding in that the organization that I was working for was primarily funded by grants, and we have seen a shift in that grant availability in the last couple of years.
So at some point, you know, that became clear that that funding may not still be there. It may not return. And you know, the bank likes you to pay your mortgage, and my dogs like to eat. So it was really a, a question of, all right, can I keep holding on in the nonprofit world without necessarily a guarantee of that funding being there?
And an opportunity came up to get me back into full prosecution and, you know, it was what I wanted to go back and do, and the timing just seemed to be right Yeah. Yeah. Well, it cer- certainly a [00:16:00] benefit to Illinois' children. It's obviously a loss at the national training level, though, as we'll discuss, not a complete loss.
Stay tuned for, for some of what you'll be doing and are doing at Coursing Justice. But, you know, just a- as someone who ha- has monitored some of those same trends I am surprised at how little these grant cuts are talked about. And I, I think, you know, just, just what we're gonna see over the next few years, you know, from some of the brightest individuals in the field be- being forced to leave the training field is just gonna have horrible consequences horrible downstream consequences just for the services children receive, the type of investigation prosecution they receive.
And so that's certainly one of the key things we're focused on at Coursing Justice, is how can we innovate and, and meet those challenges in the un- in, in the meantime. But, you know, I, I don't wanna let anyone off the hook. I think the fact that there really hasn't been a tremendous outcry, at least not at the level it should [00:17:00] be over, you know, these things being slashed, it's gonna impact a lot of people.
And that's, that's not a partisan issue, that's a public safety issue. And people really need to step up and, and, you know, call, call for these resources back because they really matter a lot and they need to be back in place. Let's step into, you were talking about some of just some of the aspects of prosecution.
Have you encountered any public misconceptions about prosecution? Or what, what misconceptions might, might the public have about, about your work as a prosecutor? You know, Law & Order: SVU is what most people see as, you know, their framework for prosecution. You know, I, I, I think one of the, the more frustrating public misconceptions is that people only go into prosecution to get a couple years experience and then- Mm-hmm
go on to do something else. And the implication being that that something else is more deserving, right? A- and i- it's tough, you know? And I know that there are a lot of people that do it as a [00:18:00] transition. But I think across the board, there are tons of dedicated career prosecutors. And we are... A- and I will say the same about our public defenders too, you know?
It's the same, there's a lot of misconceptions. But public defenders, prosecutors, we're the best trial lawyers in the country. I mean, I, I will say that, fight me about it. Because- ... we get in the courtroom and we do it. And I will put, you know, my skills and my coworkers' skills at trying cases up against any, you know, giant law firm that you know, pays millions of dollars to their partners.
We're better trial lawyers because we do it more frequently. So I think the, the misconception is that, you know, we're just sort of these, like, bumbling, inexperienced, you know, low-paid government workers, and yes, we are low paid. But- ... we're some of the best. Yeah ... you know, I, I think too there's it can be a lot of, um You know, maybe misunderstanding about what it is that prosecutors do.
And, you know, in this kind of day and age where there is a lot of, you know, [00:19:00] distrust when it comes to, you know, law enforcement and comes to, you know, the role of prosecutors in the courtroom I, I, I like to try and, you know, dispel those myths as much as I can, you know, on a personal and professional level.
Because we, we carry a lot of responsibility. You know, we have the ability to charge people with crimes. And, you know, there's the old joke of you can indict a ham sandwich, but, you know, we need to take that responsibility seriously. And particularly in the world of child abuse. You know, just the filing of a charge of child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, can have huge implications on someone's life.
And so, you know, we need to be diligent and working jointly with our multidisciplinary team partners and our police to ensure that the evidence that we have is good. You know, the confessions that are being obtained are done legally, that the evidence is being collected, you know, in a manner that is within, you know, search and seizure [00:20:00] parameters.
We have to be doing all of that. And I, I think a lot of times the public doesn't quite understand just how many different hats we have to wear and how much knowledge we have to have of what our cases are and what evidence is involved. You know, again, like, we go to law school. We go for three years.
We learn very little about how to be a prosecutor. That's a fact. When I think about all of the things that I've had to learn, you know, when it comes to DNA you know, gunshot residue AI, computers, digital forensics, all of that stuff is on-the-job learning. Which is why, you know, what you just said about bringing training back, you know, is so important because that's how we learn how to do this.
And if I don't know what to look for in a digital forensics report or what I need out of a DNA expert, and if I don't know what I'm doing we can, you know, get a conviction that we shouldn't have or not get a conviction that we need to have. [00:21:00] So, you know, just the level of, like, knowledge and depth and experience that we have to have.
I, I, I truly don't think you know, a lot of folks in the public know how intense that that can be. And, you know, I think about a lot of these, you know, like the Netflix documentaries and all the things that people watch that's like a deep dive into a trial- A lot of times you don't get the prosecutor's perspective on that because we have a special set of ethical rules that we have to follow.
And we oftentimes can't talk about cases or speak about the process and procedure. So, that too, I think, can be a little bit frustrating from our end, is that a lot of times we can't necessarily get our message out in the same way that maybe other people that would be involved in a case could. Particularly if we're talking about child abuse, right?
And our sexual assault victims and family violence. There's a lot of privacy that comes into play there. And, you know, we never want to, you know, violate the trust or privacy of a victim, and that [00:22:00] oftentimes, you know, ties our hands on what we can and can't talk about. So, I, I think we're sort of the, I don't know, like, overlooked public servants.
A- and I, I say the same again for our public defenders. You know, a lot of times it is not seen, you know, just how integral we are to the system. You know, police get free coffee everywhere, and no one ever gives prosecutors free coffee. So, you know, maybe that's a first step towards making that happen.
Well, and if they did, I don't think I would drink it- ... first of all. Yeah. Well, you don't drink coffee. It'd have to be, like, free Monster energy drink or- ... Four Loko or whatever it is that you have. If you work in a rural county... Well, you know this. If you prosecute in a rural county, don't you, a lot of people don't know this, you're quite wise to not eat at local restaurants.
Oh, yeah. That is a good call just in general. And I, I do remember a time where I couldn't go to either Subway in my first county because there were both sex offenders that worked there that I had prosecuted. So, I mean, I guess Subway you can see them make the sandwich, but I still wouldn't trust it.
Oh, man. [00:23:00] There's, I feel like there's a lot of opportunities here to make some Fogle-related puns, but I'll, I'll resist the impulse. Oh, yeah. Ugh. Then it gets too heavy. Ew. Edit that in post. So- Absolutely not. So yeah, the, a lot to, a lot to latch onto there. Completely agree. You know, I think on the litigation skill front, it is always amusing to me, I'm sure you'll find this shocking and I'm sure the listeners find this shocking, but I get threatened with lawsuits a decent amount.
Always have. Shocking. And so you know, it, it is entertaining at a, at, at times to receive those sort of cease and desists because they're intended to convey, you know, a lot of times just the way they're written and intimidation, et cetera. Overwhelmingly, those types of communications I've received, you know, even as a prosecutor were from offenders directly, oftentimes not through an attorney themselves.
But even an attorney in, themselves, I think people need to understand, you know, even [00:24:00] really good seasoned civil litigators, and this is n- not being pejorative about their skill, but a seasoned civil litigator is working on a much smaller caseload, and most of the work they're doing with that caseload is not courtroom related.
It's in preparation for courtrooms, and obviously have some phenomenally skilled civil litigators that would be quite a challenge to go up against, of course. But you know, it's pretty rare that a civil litigator is handed a stack of files and they've never seen before and said, "Go prosecute today with zero prep."
That happens all the time. That happens all the time, you know, in courtrooms across the United States. And so you have to very, very quickly, you know, be, be capable of moving that fast just on your feet. And that's not ideal, of course, especially with serious crimes like child abuse. That should not be the case, though sometimes it is, unfortunately.
But that's just fundamentally different of the type of litigation that public defenders have to do and that, that state prosecutors in particular have to do. It's just a cut above, you know, the, the [00:25:00] caseloads certainly and the repetitions that a civil lita- litigator might get. So you know, when, when a prosecutor like myself is on the receiving end of a cease and desist, I'll be honest that I find it amusing most of the time.
So keep 'em coming folks. Keep 'em coming. The, the last story I'll share on that front I got... This was directly from an offender- and he, he sent an email threatening, you know, whatever he was threatening. And he, he made the comment of, "In my ... I have an attorney and that attorney is pro bono. You know what that means?
It means they have unlimited resources." Oh, no. That, that is not what that means.
If I could get a Morgan Freeman voice. You did have- Yeah, narrator ... you know, I, I mean, I, I definitely had one very credible death threat that like kind of required some, you know, change-up in my schedule and- Congratulations ... inspired me to get ADT, which I, I still have. But I would say like overwhelmingly [00:26:00] my experience is a little different than yours in that, I don't know, like my defendants I felt like always kind of had a little bit of that like respect, you know?
Like, they didn't hate me. That, you know, it was kind of like a Yeah, not so much. Not so much on this end. Yeah I, you know, I mean, I remember there was a, a, a case that I had that I couldn't quite finish before I transitioned out, but we had a full day of motion hearings that I did, you know, to kind of wrap it up and then get it set up to be tried by the prosecutor that was taking it over.
So, you know, it was a full day in court, and a lot of you know, different motions. And this particular defendant, he was charged with a, a child sexual assault, and it was actually one of the few kind of stranger sexual assault cases that I've had. This person, it didn't know this little girl. He had met someone kind of adjacent to this girl.
He had ... Defendant had met this lady [00:27:00] and basically convinced her to, like, get him access to a child. It was basically how this case turned out. And he had had many prior offenses. He had a prior offense. He had, at one point, been a police officer and had something on duty that he was charged with that he was found not guilty of.
He had several allegations where there was one that went to trial, and he was found not guilty. There were several that had been charged and dismissed. But a lot of prior sexual assault charges. And in Illinois, we actually have a really great law that allows us to introduce previous crimes of a sexual nature for propensity purposes.
You know, a lot of times, and not to get too legal you know, there's the ability to use other bad acts, but it has to be for a reason of, like, motive, intent, lack of mistake, you know, those kinds of things. As a misdemeanor, yeah. In Illinois, we have a statute that we can use those prior crimes to show they have a propensity to commit sex crimes.
So obviously, that's something that, you know, we fight pretty hard pretrial. And that [00:28:00] was part of this full day of motion hearing. You know, all this guy's priors, you know, I wanted to argue to the judge or, you know, that eventually a jury could hear about him. And after, like, this full-day hearing something must have, you know, been said that I, I was leaving, and this defendant who I just, like, spent all day- you know, putting out some pretty bad evidence you know, he was like, "Hey, you know, good luck.
I hope, you know, I- I hope things are good at your next job." And I mean, it was, like, genuinely like, you know, "I hope things work out for you." And it was a very, like, surreal, like, man, do you know, like, were you here in this courtroom, what we just did? But I, I would say that that was a lot of my experience, that, you know, I never really got angry letters from prison.
You know, most... The, the letters that I really did enjoy I'd get from prison was the murderers that were accidentally put on the sex offender registry, and they would write me, like, "You know I just murdered that kid. I didn't molest anyone. Can you help fix this registry for me?" He's using character witness.
You know you, you know you've made some unfortunate life [00:29:00] choices when you're calling your prosecutor as a character witness. Well, I mean, there's a violent offender against youth registry, and there's a sex offender registry, and they just wanted to make sure they were on the right one. So like, yeah, I'll help you out, man.
You know, I know you're just a murderer- ... not a child molester. True civil servant. Right. True civil servant. See, you know, a prosecutor's goal is to get justice, not just convict. That's right. Well, that's another key, key piece to pick up on what you were saying. You know, co- contra so many of the impressions.
Yeah, it seems like most of the public portrayals i- in media, et cetera, is this stickler prosecutor who's prosecuting a technicality, where the person is, like, clearly innocent or, and... But you know, there's some sort of very, sort of flimsy case that's been constructed. Just most of the things I see, I don't see those things being prosecuted in real life.
Like, from me- Yeah. Who got the time? Yeah. Yeah. Who has time for these? Absolutely. Yeah. But that is, you know, that's a critical... You talked about the ethical pieces. I think that's a, a, a big [00:30:00] piece for the public to understand. You know, you were mentioning the, the ethical canon. It's the duty of the prosecutor, you know, as, as we know not just to ensure the guilty receive accountability, but the, that the innocent are not convicted.
That's a dual responsibility, and both prongs of that are absolutely critical. And I'd say- Yeah ... it's pretty rare to find a prosecutor that doesn't take, you know, both sides of that at least- pretty seriously. Eh, they, they should. Have I come across some unethical prosecutors? There are a few. Eh, yeah.
And I- and not to, again, like, get on the soapbox, but this is why it's so important that we are funding training and we are funding the paying of prosecutors. You know, I mean, when I, I think about, you know, getting out of law school, and I interviewed for a prosecutor job in, you know, a smaller county in Illinois, and the offered salary was $27,000.
Hmm. Like, I have a doctorate and like, passed the bar. And and yes, like was this in [00:31:00] 2004? Six-figure debt. Sure. Yeah. But, you know, when we aren't paying and we aren't kind of respecting the magnitude of this office, you may get people that have no business being in this position. That's fair. And any time you have a position of power, there is the possibility that someone can abuse it.
And so, you know, if we are properly training and if we are properly compensating the attorneys and prosecutors who are making these incredibly important decisions we're gonna get better results. And, and maybe that's another, like, public misconception, that, you know, we get paid for every charge and every trial, you know?
That's... we only get paid if we convict people, and that's not the case. You know? Right. Vetting and doing the right thing is- Part of our job too, and that can be some really hard decisions. And we need people that are making those decisions in an ethical and correct way Yeah. And [00:32:00] in, there are legal systems in other countries where there isn't that prosecutorial discretion component.
So for example, Spain, it's a judiciary-led, inquisition style. Obviously it's evolved since the, you know, 15th century. But where you have the judge, you know, who's guiding the investigation. The prosecutor plays a role, but it's, it's part of this process. It's not, you know, typically this exercise of discretion like we see it in the United States.
And so that's a huge aspect of it. You know, ultimately we, we have discretion over what cases go forward and, and what cases don't. And I think to revisit sort of the dual ethical prongs here, you know, ensure the guilty go punished not ensure the innocent are convicted if I were to critique the realm of prosecutors at a high level I think we are mo- with some egregious exceptions, we're mostly pretty good at the ensuring the innocent don't get convicted side of it.
Ensuring the guilty are convicted, your mileage greatly varies depend on, depending on crime. And I would say, you know, child abuse cases, sexual assault [00:33:00] cases, those are where I think some of the biggest, you know, prosecutorial failings are at a national level where many guilty do not go punished just because of the way that those, those cases are managed, which goes to your point on training.
Well, let's move into maybe the, the multidisciplinary team side of this. What- Do you sense that ever our, our friends on the multidisciplinary team, our law enforcement partners, our, our child advocacy center colleagues, victim advocates, et cetera, CPS, social services, do you sense that some of them ever have misconceptions about our, our prosecu- prosecutorial endeavors?
Yeah. In, in the spirit of a prosecutor-led multidisciplinary team, I do think it is our job to do as much as we can to educate. Yes. And, and that's part of our role. And you know, in my, one of my former counties as, you know, again, the, the prosecutor-led MDT [00:34:00] we would try and do kind of regular trainings, especially for, like, newer staff, newer people coming in.
You know, new multidisciplinary team members. Where we would kind of go from start to finish with the case. Because a lot of times us lawyers assume that everyone knows what things like preliminary hearing and grand jury indictment and motions and discovery mean. But that's not always the case.
So- Yeah ... i, I think probably more of the misconceptions would be how much control we have over the process, and I, I think that was oftentimes something that I needed to either, you know, like, talk about, make sure they understood or understand. But- You know, many times, like, we don't control the timeframe.
You know, once a case gets charged, you know, we, we have discretion over that, you know, physically signing, you know, an information or putting it in front of a grand jury for indictment. But after that the process can be real slow. And just because of our, our Constitution and the rights afforded [00:35:00] criminal defendants they have a lot of control over that early process.
And I think it can be very difficult because oftentimes victims don't have the same control or, or really arguably rights. You know, a lot of states have victims' bill of rights, but the Constitution is always going to prevail, and that that I think is oftentimes something difficult for our, our multidisciplinary team members to, to get on board with and understand.
You know, if I'm saying, "Yeah, this, this case is set for trial," but the day before the defense attorney came in and said, "Hey, this just came up. I need more time. I need to look into this," they're gonna get that continuance. A- and if it's not granted, what's gonna happen is it goes up on appeal and the appellate court is gonna say, "This defendant's rights were violated," and it's gonna get sent back.
So, you know, I, I think that can be sometimes that you know, space where we're not always communicating well. You know, I think about sometimes some cases where I needed to wait for what the lab was gonna say. You know, [00:36:00] if we've submitted DNA evidence you know, that can be kind of a make or break on a borderline case.
And I can't quite charge a case without having the DNA back, and sometimes that can take six months. Sometimes that can take a year. And I don't have control over the lab. If I call and say, "Hey, hurry up with this," they're gonna say, "Cool, you're now 4,012 in line." And, and there's just not a lot that we have control over.
Right ... and I, I think too sometimes our, our decision-making process. I, I remember having a really good conversation with some MDT members from Michigan just talking about our thought process. You know, like when I'm looking at a case from a prosecutor perspective, what I need to see, you know, what I need to have, what needs to be collected and done.
I think sometimes that is a, you know, maybe there's some misconceptions about what evidence we need to, to move a case forward. So there's always kind of that educational component, and I, I think the biggest strength of an MDT can be, you know, when we are [00:37:00] all educating each other and talking about, you know, our roles and what we need and different timeframes and parameters and restrictions.
Because it's all different. You know, we all have the same goal, but, you know, my timelines may look different than what CPS or DCFS's timelines are. You know, what law enforcement has the ability to do may look very different than what I would like them to do. So, you know, we're always in that educational space and, and trying to help, you know, each other understand where we are at.
And I, I'm not to say, or not to say that I've always been perfect at that. There have absolutely been some knock-down, drag-out moments in a staffing or a post-staffing that, you know, we didn't agree and, you know, words were shared and things were said. And I'd like to think I'm better now than, you know, I was when I was a baby prosecutor.
But you know, we do this job because we care but we also have a lot of strong personalities. And so, you know, that can sometimes turn into MDT [00:38:00] wars. But end of the day, again, same goal. So, we try and do what we can to make sure that everyone kind of understands each other's roles and that we're doing what we need to do to meet that goal.
Yeah. Yeah. We I had a, a secretary and, well, in... was fortunate to have a secretary in all of the prosecutor positions. I remember one of, one of them told me one-
or transport or, or someone else at the courthouse, you know, that she, she had b- she was assigned to me. And there was just a look of compassion, like, "Oh, that's, that sounds horrible," 'cause they're familiar with my courtroom persona, which is not very nice to say the least. But, and they're like, "No, that's not, you know, that's not the in-office personality.
He treats his staff better than he treats, you know, the sex offenders he's prosecuting." That's right ... but yeah. They very much are, are, are interesting interesting conceptions. I think I wanna latch onto something you said earlier about the relative power and [00:39:00] representations that victims have, or rather don't have, you know, just in the broader criminal justice system.
I think it, it, it is just an indisputable fact that our criminal justice system is not trauma informed. No. Period, end of sentence. If, if you were to apply, you know, the six principles of trauma-informed practice, like empowerment, voice, and choice to the criminal justice system and a victim's role in them, it's a joke.
Like it really is terrible, the level of, of, of lack of agency and lack of representation that victims have in our criminal justice system. And I would say it's actually considerably worse here than in, in many international systems if you look at how, how they're structured. But in any event, we still can make it more trauma informed and less horrible through, you know, to keep, keep banging the gavel on this training.
There are a lot of things you can do to make that system, you know, better. But I think we do need to be cognizant that as a society we have a long, long, long, long, long ways to go before there's even reasonable treatment of victims [00:40:00] in our system, in, in my opinion anyway. The other thing to latch onto from what you said the I think the misconception that when you're looking at a case or criticizing a case, you're looking for a way to not move forward- I think that's true of some prosecutors, let's be very clear, and I think there are some prosecutors that are basically another defense attorney.
Basically another barrier, you know, to, to the case moving forward. But there's a huge difference between that and what you're talking about and how you analyze a case. Can you speak to that? Yeah. I mean, that is a big part of our role as prosecutors when we're talking about, you know, reviewing child abuse cases.
And there is, again, another one of those misconceptions that they're "he said, she said" cases, right? That it's just, you know, just the child's statement is the only evidence we have. You know, if, if we are truly looking at evaluating the, the statements that our kids make, we can find a ton of evidence that corroborates what it is that they're saying and [00:41:00] the allegations being made.
And, and I would say as a prosecutor, you know, any time I sat and observed a child advocacy center interview, a forensic interview or reviewed, you know, put in the DVD and was watching it I'm coming from a lens of I wanna believe this child. I wanna believe this victim or, you know, this family member, whoever it is.
I, I want to view it. And we have to view that, you know, with a critical lens. You know, it's not about what we think, it's only about what we can prove. Right. So there are absolutely cases that I have watched a forensic interview and been like, "I believe this kid, but man, we can't find any evidence to corroborate it."
And those are really, really hard. And I, I think that's, you know, for, for me as a prosecutor, that was more where, like, I didn't wanna end up. I wanted to get to a space where I could say, "Hey, we have enough to move forward on this." And I think sometimes those were some of my biggest arguments with my law enforcement, where I would say, "Here's a list of all of these things [00:42:00] that I need you to go follow up on."
And again, I've worked with some amazing law enforcement who are just like boots on the ground, let's do it, let's find anything we can. But I'm also conscious of limitations, right? And time. And, you know, not every department has, you know, 10 detectives. You know, not every department has multiple officers working at a time to be able to go out and do these things.
So it's kind of that push and pull. But I, I think what has been, you know, one thing that has been good about our trauma-informed attempts lately is that we have more flexible statute of limitations. And so, you know, it's not that we're just looking at the same narrow timeframe of like, "Hey, we gotta make a decision now."
There have been times where, you know, I've sat down and talked with victims and families and said, "Hey, we're working on this. You know, we've got some stuff that we're trying to run down and, and look at. I don't, I don't want to charge this right now because I don't think I have enough to prove it.
But if you give us a little time and a little patience, we may be able to put this together." So [00:43:00] I've had cases where- You know, we've looked at everything and, and haven't quite gotten enough, and then something happens. A- and yeah, unfortunately it can be a year down the road, and it may take a little bit of time, and I know there's that phrase of, you know, justice delayed is justice denied.
But I'd rather look at something carefully and put together a good case before charging it and maybe having it go to a trial where a defendant's- Yeah ... found not guilty because we didn't have what we needed. So- Yeah ... I, I think I'm always looking at it in the lens of what can I find to corroborate this?
And, you know, as I sit here, I'm thinking about cases that I know, you know, I wasn't able to make, but, like, if it ever came up, absolutely would revisit it and charge it. I- so that, that should be where we're coming from. You know, again, that we are, are believing these kids that are coming in because we know the research tells us that the, you know, percentage of false allegations is real low compared to, like, [00:44:00] credible allegations that are being made.
And so- Yeah ... you know, a lot of what we get, a lot of forensic interviews that we're watching and observing, kids are talking about their experiences and what really happened to them. And I think it's our job to find what we can to corroborate that, but also being conscious of the fact, again, like I said, that, you know, it's not about what we think, it's what we can prove.
And trying to find evidence to prove it can not always be easy. Yeah. Yeah, belief is not the same thing as evidence sufficient, you know, to withstand reasonable doubt. I think of the, the case in, this was a West Virginia case, where law enforcement officer very credibly accused, like, he unquestionably did, assaulted, you know, women.
You know, the driving while female situation, women on probation and things like that. Like, very much targeting vulnerable women. So, like, really rock solid case in some ways, challenging case in other ways just based on witnesses, et [00:45:00] cetera. And I remember the, there was a public statement of the prosecutor that said, "What we have to look at is, is this case easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?"
And that's a hilarious but tragic way of looking at it because, if that's your perspective, you're just not going to prosecute these cases, and unfortunately that's the reality in many jurisdictions. I think the public would be shocked to know in some, in some jurisdictions these hard cases just aren't, you know, aren't, aren't fought for.
No. And that's, that's just the reality, tragically. So pay attention. Pay attention to what your local prosecutor's up to or not up to. It's, it's extremely important. Yeah. Well, you ha- having done this for a hot minute, I'm sure there are some bizarro cases that you've encountered over the years. Any of those jump out to you?
I, I mean, I think I would say across the board, a lot of what we deal with, If we really, like, got into details, I, I think people wouldn't believe it. I mean, the- ... [00:46:00] the truth is stranger than fiction happens all the time. And, you know, just some of the things over the years that, you know, kids have said or kids have talked about you know, just kind of some truly wild s- fa- facts, circumstances.
And, and again, I'm always conscious of you know, the victims and the, you know, privacy and things like that. But there was a, a case that I had that involved the, the perpetrators were two brothers, and they were abusing some children that they had met through one of their girlfri- so, like, the girlfriend of one of these perpetrators was the mother of these two children, and she left them, you know, in the care of these two weirdos.
But, eh, the, the case moved through. It was prosecuted, and the mom was always supportive of boyfriend, which we find, unfortunately, a lot. But the same judge that took defendant's plea and sentenced him to a [00:47:00] significant amount of prison time then kind of changed hats and performed the marriage ceremony of defendant and mother of these victims.
So kind of a two-for-one judge, right? You know, sentencing to prison- ... and then marrying. But a, a kind of an interesting piece with those brothers is that one of them was already a previously convicted sex offender. You know, now both brothers are sex offenders. They had a sibling who was already in prison for a sex offense.
They had a sister who was a sex offender that actually came to the wedding and served as the witness. So pretty much all of these kids were all sex offenders in some way, shape, or form. And I came across one of the other brothers in my role as a prosecutor in the sexually violent person's commitment cases and so kind of was reading the, the deep dive family history.
And there was another sibling that had been given up for adoption, and I always wanted to figure out how to find that child [00:48:00] and see, okay, are they a sex offender, too, or is it nature versus nurture? And there's no way to ever, like, answer that question. But, you know, these are just kind of, like, the weird things that we encounter and experience in all these different, you know, like, layers of psychology and trauma and family relationships because so many of our cases are involving families, right, a- and, you know, known perpetrators.
And, yeah, I mean, it gets weird real fast. And you know, a lot of times you'll be, you know, listening to a forensic interview and kids talking about, you know, just, like, this, you know, truly, like, horrifying and heinous things. And then, you know, we'll just start talking about their day. And it can, again, I mean, get very weird, but then we al- Always get that reminder of, you know, that these are kids' lives, and, you know, the things that they're talking about you know, for them may seem completely normal because that's their day-to-day and their every day.
And I, I think that was a really hard thing to wrap my brain around from, like, a prosecution [00:49:00] perspective and, you know, from growing up in a home without abuse and without, you know, these experiences that the things that we're listening to where kids are talking about that are just horrifying are their normal.
And so, you know, that's why I think it does get so hard to be like, "Let's talk about all these weird cases," because to these kids, that's, that's their normal. That's their- Right ... day-to-day. And y- yeah, I mean, there, there's definitely a lot of weirdness out there. And you know, it's, it's har- It's that balance, right?
You know, we have to, we have to laugh, and we have to find humor. And I am definitely someone that you know, looks to finding humor and, and jokes in horrifying spaces. But yeah, I mean, it's really that, that balance of you have to laugh because some of this is just so weird and crazy that, you know, really thinking about it will make you crazy.
I think our, our colleague, our former colleague Victor Vieth said there was some sort of study on the use of dark humor [00:50:00] and that being a, a genuine coping mechanism. And a sign of intelligence, I think, too. Yeah. Well, I won't, I won't fight you, fight you on that point. You know, some of the darker cases are of course the child homicide cases.
You have a lot more experience, I was about to say you have a lot more experience with child homicide. You have a lot more experience with child homicide prosecution than I do. Tell us about some of the difficulties of prosecuting those cases. Those can be really difficult cases because oftentimes the perpetrator is known.
I- it's, again, the, the stranger cases are few and far between. And also too, a lot of times the perpetrator is mother or female caregiver, and there is a lot of, you know, misconceptions about, you know, women and, you know, mama bears and protectors. If you've done this work for more than 30 seconds, you know that women are completely capable of harming their children or putting their children in harm's way.
Yes. [00:51:00] So that can be a very difficult component to kinda go up against that, you know, public misconception. Oftentimes, you know, when you see something in the news of, you know, stepdad or boyfriend killing child, it's like, oh, well, of course. But if you see, like, mom, the, the response is, well, there has to be a reason, right?
There has to be an explanation to why this happened. So that can be a really difficult dynamic to go up against. Again, when oftentimes the perpetrators are family members, there are many times in my child death cases where our side of the room has been empty, you know? That the support has been for perpetrator and not necessarily for the child.
And that can be a tough reality. And, you know, sometimes there is a little bit of those optics for a jury when they're seeing, you know, all the support is on one side. You know, that can go one of two ways, you know? That, hey, we're the only ones standing up for this child. Or it can have the perception of, well, obviously, if all these people are supporting defendant, then the prosecution must be wrong.
[00:52:00] And there is too, the, the emotional component, You know, I will say baby autopsies are probably some of the more difficult things to, to sit through- Mm ... and observe. And, you know, from a prosecutor role, I always attended as many of those autopsies as I could because I wanted to learn, you know, the process.
If I understand what's happening, then I can explain it to 12 people in a jury. Right ... but also, you know, too, autopsies aren't always super clear, and they... there's, you know, a lot of, of questions that we have for, you know, medical examiners and coroners. So, but that's again, a, a difficult thing to, to sit through and to see.
And you know, particularly in cases where it maybe wasn't something like, you know, a, a co-sleeping or a suffocation where there's, you know, real terrible injuries. You know, we know abusive head trauma cases with, you know, skull fractures and brain bleeds and you know, retinal hemorrhaging. All of those are, are things that happen to our kids.
And to see that and you know, have to [00:53:00] work through that whole process i- it's, it, it takes a toll on you. And you know, it's a lot of times thinking like this is just not fair. You know, that these, the littles that have no defense, and, you know, the people that are most supposed to be protecting them are the ones that are harming them.
It's, you know, it raises a lot of, you know, like, philosophical and, you know, ethical and moral quandaries of, you know, how, how can this happen? And you know, kind of balancing that on a regular basis, you know? Like, these- Mm-hmm ... I think child death cases happen a lot more frequently than people realize.
And, you know, if we look at, like, our statistics and, you know, what has been done, you know, to advance our, our child death investigations and our, you know, child death review teams that are happening that are really giving hard looks at cases. You know, a lot of child death cases were just kind of, like, brushed off as SIDS, you know, [00:54:00] just a tragic accident when if actually we're reviewing them and looking them through an investigatory lens, there's a lot more that's happening.
So i- yeah, I mean, and then I, I've had it too, you know, some of our, our stranger murder cases that have involved kids. I had a case that I prosecuted that it was essentially a, a, a drug deal gone bad, and our, our victim was a 20-something-year-old who was pretty far along. I think she was about six or seven months pregnant.
But then she had her little six-year-old cousin with her, and he was, unfortunately, part of that, that murder. And you know, that's a really tough... You know, that was a, a case that involved actually skeletal remains because it was some time before they were found. And you know, we had an amazing forensic anthropologist that we called as, as a witness.
But, you know, to be showing the skeletal remains, you know, of, of an adult female and then a little six-year-old, and then fetal skeletal remains, you know, like that, that's something that's real heavy. And that was a jury [00:55:00] trial that a, a jury- Hmm ... had to kind of view and see. And you know, I, I think, too, that is another piece where we as prosecutors have that ethical responsibility to ensure that what we're showing, you know, from an evidentiary perspective is necessary, but not overly traumatizing if we can avoid it.
But What a tough tension that is. What a tough tension that is between here is the crime and, and the injury and all, and all the horror that that is, but not being another form of exploitation and sensationalism. Absolutely. And, and making sure that our jurors are okay. I've been a big proponent of after the fact if you can work with, like, your jury commissioner or, you know, whoever kind of works with that jury contact.
But offering counseling- Yes ... offering, you know, some outlet there. Because again, we see this every day. This is our day-to-day. But to our jurors, it is not. And, you know, again, I, I have a, a case that wasn't a child death [00:56:00] because baby was okay. But it was, you know, seven-week-old with a, a skull fracture and rib fractures.
And during the trial we were putting up X-rays where you can clearly see the skull fracture. But this is a little baby, and you can also see that he's, like, sucking his thumb while this X-ray is happening. Hmm. And one of the jurors just lost it. I mean- Wow ... just really started crying, and we had to take a break.
And I remember at the time thinking, like, "This isn't that bad. These are just X-rays." And that is absolutely, like, where our mentality gets skewed, right? Hmm. That we are just thinking, like, "What?" You know, this is just something we see every day. And I think for me as a prosecutor, like, that was a really important moment of, like, recognizing what we're doing and- This is not normal
No, no, not at all. And I mean, and my response of like, "What, it's just X-rays," is also not okay. Like- ... we need to be better. So you know, but these are the things that we're doing, and we're asking people to view. And, you know, that's not even getting into the [00:57:00] world, like, child sexual abuse material, if we have to be showing jurors those images and videos.
Yes. It is, it is a lot, and can really have some tough consequences on the people that, you know, we're asking to make these incredibly important choices like a jury verdict. Yeah. Yeah. There, there is so much work that needs to be done. I know Dr. Michael Bourke and others have, have championed how, how critical the officer wellness piece when it comes to CSAM, child sexual abuse material cases especially.
But just the folks that have been exposed to the worst of the worst yeah, any sort of wellness initiative, and also technical tools. That's some of the promise of technology. But some of the technical tools that can really reduce that exposure is critical 'cause it very much, you know, in, in a very real way it costs lives, that, that type of exposure.
It, it absolutely does. So. Well, I wanna talk about something you and I both, both experienced, you more than me, and that is this concept of, shall we say, less than [00:58:00] well-intentioned defense experts in the context of abusive head trauma. Have you ever, ever encountered such a creature? I, I would say at this point the involvement of experts in abusive head trauma from the defense perspective is almost the, God, I'm totally gonna say this wrong, the rule, not the exception, right?
That it happens almost every time. Yeah. I, I would say at this point it would be rare to go to trial on an abusive head trauma case and not have a defense expert. And what's interesting is if you talk to your child abuse pediatricians, you know, your people that are actually experts in injuries to children, you know, they will say there is no controversy about abusive head trauma in the medical community.
I- Not the science itself. No, no. It- The science itself is not controversial ... only in the courtroom. And, you know, when you have it, what you're seeing now is more frequently, E- experts that are, you know, like [00:59:00] biomechanical engineers, people that are not abusive head trauma experts child abuse experts, but are, are talking about, you know, functions and mechanisms and speed and force and blah that's where you're seeing a lot of these defense experts that are going to raise some other alternative explanation.
But oftentimes it's missing a lot of the other injuries and things that have occurred. You know, they may be talking about, well, this, this skull fracture could have been caused by a short fall. But then what about the old rib fractures? Or what about, you know, the prior injuries, or, you know, the injuries currently to this child that are not related to a short fall?
Or, you know, the statements and observations of people that see this child or around this child. But i- yeah, I mean, it is absolutely an industry. And- Yep ... there are many experts across the country that will, you know, look at a case and give an opinion that oftentimes doesn't [01:00:00] really line up with what the evidence is.
But if you have a judge that isn't good about reining in some of these, you know, experts and what they actually are experts in or can testify to or, you know, a defense attorney that's gonna confuse a jury, it, it can be difficult. I, I would say that abusive head trauma cases are probably some of the most difficult to try.
And also, like maybe just for a, a, a point of, I don't know, education shaken baby syndrome is something that was used and talked about a lot and as the research has advanced and has the education, you know, of our child abuse pediatricians has, you know, increased throughout the year or throughout the years y- abusive head trauma is now what was often previously referred to as shaken baby syndrome.
And again, that's probably a whole another, you know, podcast. But that's the, the appropriate medical terminology is abusive head trauma. And unfortunately [01:01:00] babies, kids are so susceptible to being injured, you know, when they're little and, you know, don't have, again, that ability to defend themselves or even, you know, sometimes hold their own heads up.
They're so vulnerable. And unfortunately, a lot of these cases, like I was saying earlier, involve caretakers and people that are known. You know, it's pretty rare that you would have a, a stranger shaking baby case. It's oftentimes the people that are around these kids. And, You know, if you have an alternative explanation or something, you know, else to explain why these injuries occurred again, as a multidisciplinary team, we're always looking to, you know, look into the facts, right?
And that's where our medical providers are so important. You know, if your multidisciplinary team doesn't have access to good medical work on it, because it really can, you know, make or break some of these cases. And, you know, we may be juris doctors, but we're not doctors doctors. And we need, you know, that information from our medical providers [01:02:00] of, you know, how are these injuries caused?
What could have caused this? Is this, you know, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which is our, our legal buzzwords. We need to work with our medical partners to then be able to combat those BS defenses you know, that are just working to confuse the jury. That it's not really an explanation, it's just being used to try and get someone not convicted Smoke and mirrors.
It's smoke and mirrors. And yeah, there are, there are varying degrees of respectability. You know, I've certainly encountered individuals that I'll charitably describe here as hacks, because they will ... You know, it's anything that you can throw against the wall. Anything you can throw against the wall, and then just, just deeply irresponsible.
You know, I obviously am supportive of and appreciative of, of advances in, like, DNA testing. And so obviously it's critical where there's been someone who's been wrongly convicted, and the DNA testing and all of that. You know, that's, that's a, a gift certainly to the criminal justice system. [01:03:00] You know, but I think of a case I had
and just the individuals that were brought in in that case, and I'm not making a blanket judgment, but in that case these, these were hacks, is, is just the reality. And so it was a case where clear child homicide. These experts were brought in after the fact
so already convicted, you know, appellate, all that stuff. And so they get involved, you know, arguing newly discovered evidence because of, you know, the advances or, or updates in the research which were not relevant. But in any event, it's a tough thing for a rural county to defend because you have to go over to your county commissioner and say, "Hey, can you give me five figures so I can bring in someone who knows what they're talking about to counter this?"
In that case actually it was overturned, not because of the medical pieces, but because of the, the performance of the defense attorney. I- in- ineffective assistance of counsel. So the defense attorney's performance at trial was the problem there. And what happened in the case is the defense strategy was sort of to go all in on [01:04:00] this, this, the accused's peaceful character.
Well, he wasn't very peaceful, is, was the issue with that strategy. So when the defense attorney introduced, you know, peaceful character, what does that enable the prosecution to do?
Oh, really? You know, here's, here's the prior incident. And so it was overturned because of that, not because of anything relating to, you know, flaws in in updates in abusive head trauma But yet when you see the press release of the Innocence Project and the, experts involved," it's, "Oh, look, justice has been achieved," and that's not what happened.
Oh, and actually that individual then pled guilty to a violent assault on a child, just not a, a homicide. But this, this is the type of shenanigans and smoke and mirrors that happens in this field, and to your point, is part of what makes, you know, this, this work so difficult. Well, before I let you go, you are uniquely positioned as someone who, you know, prosecuted for a good while before the pandemic, so you've seen the evolution in the field.
You also prosecuted during the pandemic, and now you've prosecuted after the pandemic. [01:05:00] So what is jumping out to you, you know, about those different pieces? The latter two I do not have in my experience. So what, what's different? What's the same? How has that been? Well, I'll say this, Zoom, I mean, absolutely kind of revolutionized our, our court process.
You know, it is now totally normal to appear by Zoom for a court hearing. A- doing, you know, remote appearances, remote hearings I mean, that has been great, you know, especially if you are working in a rural community. You know, thinking about our ability to get access to more kids you- for therapy, mental health, you know, like getting the, you know, this kind of treatment to some of our kids that may not be able to, you know, come in day to day or, you know, get that mental health side of it.
You know, the Zoom creation has, I- I think, really had a huge impact. You know, I mentioned it earlier that we, we did lose a lot of people. That a lot of people kind of transitioned out of this [01:06:00] during COVID. You know, we did see, too, kind of like the, the child abuse and domestic violence numbers did increase during that time period.
And online exploitation, for sure. Yeah. And it was... I, I will say it was really difficult to prosecute during that time. I was still actively a prosecutor. A- and, you know, trying to a- adjust and change you know, when our, our courts were essentially shut down. You know, talking with families of, "Hey, you know, I have no idea when we may get this to trial."
You know, those were really hard conversations 'cause i- traditionally, we could say, "Here's sort of a rough timeline." But when our courts aren't even open, I, I don't know. I don't know when we can get this done. I did have two, I'll call them COVID trials where things had started to open back up a little bit and you know, we still had to social distance.
So, you know, our, our jurors weren't sitting in the jury box. They were sitting essentially in, like, the, the benches in, like- [01:07:00] Wow ... the audience of the courtroom, and were six feet apart and were masked. And our witnesses had to be, you know, masked while they were not testifying. We had microphones because we were ma- you know, like the lab- little, like- hookup microphones because we were masked as well.
And it, you know, it was on some level good because okay, like, we're getting back and doing stuff. But I will say as a prosecutor, you know, I... It was a jury trial and, you know, I picked a jury. And, you know, when you're doing jury selection, that engagement with your jurors is huge. You know, we're just kinda getting a feel for people.
And, you know, generally when we have that courtroom set up, we're, you know, sitting pretty close and, and I can see my jurors through the course of the trial. And, you know, there's always one or two that, like, you know you got them. You know, the ones that are nodding along with you during closing. Like, all right, hey, worst case scenario, this is a hung jury, 'cause, like, I got some.
When I got up to give that closing argument and had to turn around and face, you know, the jury, I had this realization of I've had no [01:08:00] interaction with them throughout this- Yeah ... entire week-long trial because they've been behind me. And now they're all masked, and I can't see facial expressions, and I have no idea- Mm
what the outcome of this is going to be, 'cause I can't even- Terrifying ... get any vibes. And this was a case that involved my, my perpetrator was an auxiliary police officer. And, you know, my, my victim was a, a teenager. And, you know, it was a, it was a tough case. A- and I absolutely remember having that terrifying moment of I've had no interaction with this jury since jury selection, and I hope we got it right.
And, you know, spoiler, we did. It's all right. Worked out. Good. But, like, those were things I think for me kind of, like, lessons learned of how important our, our jury interaction and jury selection and, like, those real pieces, like, make a difference in making sure that we're doing a good job from that.
You know, it definitely was sort of a, a COVID takeaway. But yeah, I mean, I, I think there's a lot of things that, that changed. I think we [01:09:00] absolutely saw how key mandated reporting is- Right ... and how important people having eyes on our kids at a regular basis. You know, it comes to our, our teachers and daycare providers and, you know, even just our, our doctors and nurses and you know, church and, you know, the people that regularly see kids.
You know, during the pandemic that wasn't happening, and there's a lot of kids that fell off the grid, Right ... and a lot of kids that maybe, you know, moved school districts, and that was just happening during COVID and then maybe never quite resurfaced. You know, again, I know that there's a lot that your shield task force does with the human trafficking.
And, you know, human trafficking isn't happening from, you know, kids getting snatched out of a cart at Target. You know, it's happening to our vulnerable kids, our, our kids that don't have a lot of eyes on them or maybe in foster care or, you know, some other type of care. That's where kids go missing, and I, I think we saw unfortunately a lot of that in COVID that may never have kind of bounced back.
[01:10:00] So, again, I, I think we lost a lot of good prosecutors and MDT members, but I, I think it's a little bit on the upswing in that, you know, there's a lot more conversations happening now about victims and sexual assault and sexual exploitation. And so it, we're getting a new kind of generation of prosecutors that are coming in.
And, you know, some of the, I say younger kids, but obviously they're adults, but you know, like coming into this field with a passion to want to help and to want to change and you know, work with what they can do to be an advocate and a voice. And so while we lost a lot of good prosecutors, I think we're getting a lot of new prosecutors that really believe in what we're doing and what we can do when it comes to, you know, advocating for kids and families in the courtroom.
Awesome. Well, that's encouraging. And you've obviously been able to see the evolution not just in, in your local context, but also just across the field as you've trained across the US [01:11:00] previously at Zero Abuse Project and now at Coursing Justice. So on the Coursing Justice front, if folks wanted Kathleen to come do a training there's certainly trainings that I enjoy a lot more just as a trainer, and I suspect, and I know the same is true of you.
What would be some of your, your favorite topics or, or modalities in your training? So I, I would have to say favorite is the courses that you and I do that involve a crime scene simulation and trial simulation. That is the best way to learn is getting into, you know, some, some mock situations of mock testimony, mock crime scenes, mock investigation, mock interrogations.
Those are fun for us to do- Yes ... because we definitely get creative. Sometimes we get a little over-enthusiastic, like Robert agreeing to do a four homicide mock crime scene but hey, we make it work. And so- Intense ... those are absolutely, I think, some of the [01:12:00] best learning pieces too, because the learning happens organically.
And, you know, when you put teams together and you know, you put a, a police officer and a prosecutor and a forensic interviewer and a child protection worker, you know, in that kind of cr- created, manufactured space, they're learning from each other. But then, you know, they're learning about the different roles and processes and procedures but then are, are taking away better ways to do their job.
So, like, those are absolutely, I think, my favorite to do. And then, you know, anything that gets results. I mean, and my favorite thing in the world is when I have a prosecutor reach out and say, you know, "Hey, I sat through one of your sessions and I used some of the things you talked about, and I got a conviction.
I won the motion." You know, those are, are- Mm-hmm ... always gonna be my favorites too, when we can see the real results of a training. And, again, I don't think we can overstate how important training is for these cases, because they are different and they are weird, and they take a lot of time and effort and [01:13:00] understanding.
And we need to ensure that everyone is trained to be able to go out and do it, and those mock crime scenes absolutely create that space. Yeah, shout out to our, our good friend Patty Saunders over at Hero’s Haven CAC. She's let us do some of the more unhinged scenarios. And I suppose I should also shout out in, in the interest of going over the top Susie Scharf, who's the director at Lighthouse CAC, who was a, a guest actor in that scene.
We went a little overboard on the blood, admittedly. And we had to kinda scrape Susie off the floor because it had congealed after we- Literally Literally had congealed after she laid there for hours as teams went through. So yeah, thank you, Susie. It's for the children. Well done. But it absolutely is a lot of fun.
And yeah, hel- helps you navigate some things in a different way. I love about the... I'm the same way. I think those are the best courses. I love that it's not just vertical learning, you know, from the single talking head at the front of the room, but there's that [01:14:00] horizontal learning from teams learning from each other at, at a level that you can never replicate, you know, as a, as a single trainer.
So I think there's so much value to all of the above. Well, thank you, Kathleen. You have trenches to return to, so grateful for all you're doing, continuing to seek justice and just for all your years doing that. Thanks for sharing your insight with our audience. And again, if you want to learn more either about Kathleen's background or some of the trainings that she and others at Coursing Justice do come on over to coursingjustice.com.
You can sign up for our newsletter and join us as we continue charting a way forward for justice in the cases that matter most.
