When prosecuting domestic violence cases, too many officers have built their entire case solely on statements made by the victim. However, “victims of domestic violence are more likely than victims of other violent crimes to recant or refuse to cooperate with prosecutorial efforts” (Breitenbach, 2008, p. 1256). Officers should consider that victims of domestic violence may refuse to testify due to fear of retaliation, intimidation, financial dependence, emotional attachment and/or because they have found the abuser. If the victim refuses to testify in court, their statement against the attacker becomes hearsay evidence. Several recent cases have had considerable influence on how these statements and hearsay evidence can be used in court without the victim's testimony. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on Crawford v. Washington and held that testimonial assertions were not exceptions to hearsay. rule (Breitenbach, 2008). Since the purpose of testimony was to prove and/or establish facts in a case, the accused had the right to cross-examine that testimony. This right was called the confrontation clause. Due to the confusion created by the Crawford standard, the Supreme Court provided more parameters in Davis v. Washington in June 2006 (Ewing, 2007). Davis established the victims' accounts as testimonies or non-testimonies. Courts have also held that this includes statements made during interrogation by law enforcement. If the statements were obtained by law enforcement to determine an ongoing emergency, then they were identified by the court as non-testimonial and not subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. If the statements we...... middle of paper ......ion of the victim. Works Cited Breitenbach, KG (2008, Fall). Combating the Threat: Successful Domestic Violence Prosecutions After Davis v. Washington. Albany Law Review, 71(4), 1255+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA200252467&v=2.1&u=chazsu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=wByrom, CE (2005). The use of the excited statement hearsay exception in prosecuting domestic violence cases after Crawford v. Washington. Litigation Review, 24(2), 409-428.Ellison, LL (2002). Prosecuting domestic violence cases without victim involvement. Modern Law Review, 65(6), 834-858. Ewing, D. (2007). Pursue the attackers following Davis and Hammon. American Journal Of Criminal Law, 35(1), 91-106. Pence, E. and Paymar, M. (2001). Domestic violence: the response of law enforcement. Minneapolis, MN: Law Enforcement Resource Center.