Wendy Murphy

Wendy Murphy
Born	(1961-08-13) August 13, 1961
Alma mater	Boston College
Occupation	Lawyer
Known for	Handling legal cases related to child abuse and sex crime

Wendy Murphy (born August 13, 1961) is a lawyer specializing in child abuse and interpersonal violence.

Education

Murphy received a BA from Boston College in 1983 and became a Juris Doctor from New England Law Boston in 1987.

Career

Murphy began her career as a prosecutor in Middlesex County, handling legal cases related to child abuse and sex crime. Then, she switched to her private practice to focus on violence against women and children. Murphy is an adjunct professor of sexual violence law at New England Law Boston. Murphy was a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School from 2002 to 2003. Earlier, she taught Reproductive Rights and Technologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is the founder and director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group, which is a volunteer legal advocacy organization that, since 1992, has provided free legal services to victims in the criminal justice system.

She successfully sued both Princeton University and Harvard Law School for violating Title IX regulations “by mishandling sexual assault complaints.”

Of the case against Harvard Law School, she writes:

“The case began when Harvard Law School hired me as a consultant in early 2010, in connection with a Title IX matter. When I pointed out to Harvard officials that their policies were noncompliant, and they refused to fix them, I filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in which I identified numerous substantive and procedural violations of Title IX that were then in place in the law school’s policy.”

With co-counsel John Williams, she sued Yale University on behalf of Susan Daria Landino (formerly Burhans). This was another Title IX case and the first Jackson v Birmingham case filed by a higher education administrator rather than a sports coach.

When serial child rapist Wayne Chapman was to be released from jail, she represented his victims to keep him in jail. She filed an appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court asking for an emergency injunction preventing his release.

According to author Stuart Taylor, Jr., she is also a supporter of the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" principle in the American judicial system. She was quoted as saying, "I'm really tired of people suggesting that you're somehow un-American if you don't respect the presumption of innocence because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption: You're a liar."

Controversies

Duke Lacrosse Case

Wendy Murphy has been a frequent guest on MSNBC, FOX, and CBS and is described as a "former sex crimes prosecutor"[1] During Murphy's time as a commentator on during the Duke Lacrosse case, she made many statements that were completely speculative; described as "disgraceful" and "bizarre". By one count, she made "18 demonstrably untrue statements" during the case including:

• "To suggest [the indicted players] were well behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?" (The Situation, June 5, 2006)
• "I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child" (CNN Live, May 3, 2006)
• "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak the truth" (The Situation, June 5, 2006)
• "One of the reasons I think [the accuser] she should be thought of as fairly credible is that she rejected a 2 million dollar plus offer by people on behalf of Duke at the outset" (December 22, 2006). This stands in stark contrast to the accuser's own statement to the police that she had never been offered any money, by anyone, to drop the case.
• "All the photographs showing how really fine she was when she left the scene were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent" (May 1, 2006). In fact, these photographs were cited in various defense motions and even the prosecutor in the case didn't challenge their veracity.
• "You know, these guys actually...some of them have been, according to neighbors, reportedly been involved in not only carousing activity but other sexual offenses" (April 11, 2006). There was no record of any such statements, by any neighbor. The Coleman Committee Report could not find any record of such claims.
• "All of them took the Fifth. All of them refused to cooperate. All of them refused to give a DNA sample, until the court produced an order compelling them to do so" (April 19, 2006). In fact, many players including Dave Evans, Dan Flannnery, and Matt Zash gave multi-hour statements to the police, voluntarily gave DNA samples, and offered to take lie-detector tests. No player ever invoked the Fifth Amendment at any point in the case.
• "It was because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn't produce DNA when you put it inside someone" (April 27, 2006). At no point in her myriad of stories did the accuser claim assault by a broom.
• "Over 99 percent of cases indicted are in fact legitimate; the guys are guilty" (May 16, 2006). No credible study exists contending more than 99 percent of people indicted are guilty.
• "[the alleged victim] was under the influence of the date rape drug" (May 2, 2006). A toxicology report indicated no such finding.

Wendy's behavior was so abhorrent, it lead to an entire article written in the Fordham Law Journal titled Sensationalism Falling Through the Cracks: Why the Legal Profession Must Broaden Ethical Standards for Legal Commentators. In this publication, the authors opine on the absurdity of Murphy's statements on TV that were "strongly slanted towards the prosecution" and advocate for the American Bar Association to adopt more stringent rules around attorneys' statements to the media (although the American Bar Association took no action).The article goes on to state that "Murphy even questioned the presumption of innocence (one of the most important tenets of U.S. criminal law) by stating "I'm really tired of people suggesting that you are somehow un-American if you don't respect the presumption of innocence"" and that "By providing headline-worthy but legally-deficient commentary, Murphy's behavior epitomized why the legal profession needs to confront the ethical issues that attorneys face when speaking in the media".

Wendy further went on to state that "the [Durham District Attorney's] withholding of [exculpatory DNA evidence in the case] was proper because of the [accuser's] sexual history, like the sexual history of the defendants, is constitutionally protected private information. It is improper for any prosecutor to disclose this information without a hearing at which a judge must make a ruling to decide whether sexual history is relevant to an issue in dispute". In reality, North Carolina law requires all results of forensic tests to be turned over to the defense and the prosecutor does not have the authority to withhold this information from the defense. In other words, Murphy supported the Durham District Attorney's decision to break the law and withhold exculpatory evidence.

Despite these actions, Murphy is still employed by the New England School of Law.

Publications

• And Justice For Some: An Exposé of the Lawyers and Judges who Let Dangerous Criminals Go Free. (published by Penguin/Sentinel in September 2007; updated and re-released in paperback in 2014)
• How Title IX Won its Rightful Seat at the Civil Rights Table of Justice, and Why the Legs Are Still so Wobbly,
• Effective Gender Activism: An Exercise in Marginalization, in Martin, J.L. (Ed.), Racial Battle Fatigue: Insights from the Front Lines of Social Justice Advocacy, (pp. 191–208). (Santa Barbara, CA Praeger 2015)
• Traumatized Children who Participate in Legal Proceedings are Entitled to Testimonial and Participatory Accommodations Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 19 Roger Williams Law Review 361 (2014)
• Book Review: Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice (Caringella), Sexual Assault Report, Civic Research Institute, pp. 67–68 (May/June 2013)
• Bullying and Harassment in Schools: Analysis of Legislation and Policy, in M.A. Paludi (Ed.), Women and Management, Global Issues and Promising Solutions, volume 2: Signs of Solutions (pp. 29–51). (Santa Barbara, CA Praeger 2013)
• Unpacking the Rights of Third Parties in Criminal Cases, Family and Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly, 5, No. 1, (Summer 2012)
• Sexual Harassment and Title IX: What's Bullying Got To Do With It, New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 37, 305-324 (2011)
• Privacy Rights in Mental Health Counseling: Constitutional Confusion and the Voicelessness of Third Parties in Criminal Cases, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 39: 387-395 (2011)
• Using Title IX's “Prompt and Equitable” Hearing Requirements to Force Schools to Provide Fair Judicial Proceedings to Redress Sexual Assault on Campus, 40 New England Law Review, No. 4, pp. 1007–1022 (2006)
• “Federalizing” Victims’ Rights to Hold State Courts Accountable, 9 Lewis & Clark L.Rev. 647 (2005)
• The Overlapping Problems of Prosecution Sample Bias and Systematic Exclusion of Familial Child Sex Abuse Victims from the Criminal Justice System, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, pp. 129–132 (2004)
• New Strategies for Child Abuse Prosecutions After Crawford, ABA Journal, vol. 23, #8, pp. 129–133 (2004)
• The Victim Advocacy and Research Group: Serving a Growing Need to Provide Rape Victims with Personal Legal Representation to Protect Privacy Rights and Fight Gender Bias in the Criminal Justice System, 11 Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, No.1, p. 123 (2001)
• Special Problems Regarding the Discovery and Use of Privileged Information, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Superior Court Criminal Practice Manual, Spring, (1999 and update 2003)
• Minimizing the Likelihood of Discovery of Victims’ Counseling Records and Other Personal Information in Criminal Cases: Massachusetts Give a Nod to a Constitutional Right to Confidentiality, 32 New England Law Review, No. 4, Summer (1998) (recognized in “Worth Reading,” National Law Journal)
• Gender Bias in the Criminal Justice System, Harvard Women's Law Journal; 20th Anniversary Edition, June (1997)
• Legal Rights of Trauma Victims, in “Trauma and Memory: Clinical and Legal Controversies,” Oxford University Press, (1997)
• Debunking “False Memory” Myths in Sexual Abuse Cases, Trial, Journal of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, (November 1997)