When Prosecutors DARVO: How Accountability Gets Reversed in the Courtroom

QuickFAQs

What does DARVO stand for?

DARVO means Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is a response pattern identified by psychologist Jennifer Freyd in which a person accused of wrongdoing denies the conduct, attacks the accuser, and positions themselves as the victim.

Can prosecutors use DARVO tactics?

Yes. When confronted with misconduct allegations—Brady violations, discovery irregularities, off-record plea representations, or retaliatory charging—some prosecutors respond by reframing critics as unstable, manipulative, or dangerous.

Why does this matter?

Because prosecutors wield extraordinary power. When DARVO tactics are used inside a courtroom, they can distort judicial perception and shift attention away from record integrity and constitutional compliance.

---

Prosecutors occupy one of the most powerful roles in the American legal system. They decide what charges to file, what plea offers to extend, what evidence to disclose, and how to frame the narrative of guilt before a judge or jury. With that authority comes a constitutional obligation: to seek justice, not simply to secure convictions.

But what happens when a prosecutor is confronted with evidence of misconduct, procedural irregularities, or constitutional error?

In some cases, the response is not correction, and they intentionally opt for deflection. Instead of engaging the substance of the concern, the focus shifts to the person raising it. The record becomes secondary. The critic becomes central. This dynamic follows a well-documented psychological pattern known as DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. In the courtroom context, that pattern is not just interpersonal manipulation; it is quite literally institutional power protecting itself.

---

The Psychology Behind DARVO

Jennifer Freyd introduced the DARVO framework while studying institutional betrayal and abuse dynamics. Her research shows that powerful actors often respond to exposure by:

1. Denying the behavior
2. Attacking the person raising the concern
3. Reversing roles so the accused becomes the “target”

In ordinary life, that’s manipulative.
In a courtroom, it’s corrosive.

Prosecutors are not ordinary actors. They are constitutional officers with ethical obligations under:

• Brady v. Maryland¹
• Giglio v. United States²
• American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8

Their duty is not to win; it is to seek justice.

When the response to scrutiny becomes psychological role reversal instead of record correction, something is very much broken.

---

What DARVO Looks Like in Prosecutorial Practice

Let’s break this down without melodrama.

1. Deny

• “There was no plea promise.”
• “The restitution numbers were accurate.”
• “The filing was timely.”

Even when transcripts show uncertainty.
Even when metadata shows discrepancy.
Even when proof-of-service dates do not match.

Denial buys time. It shifts the burden.

---

2. Attack

This is where it gets personal.

• Labeling critics as obsessive or unstable
• Implying manipulation
• Suggesting harassment
• Characterizing oversight efforts as retaliation

Notice what’s missing: correction of the record.

When the conversation becomes about the critic’s personality instead of the integrity of the file, the tactic is working.

---

3. Reverse Victim and Offender

Now the prosecutor becomes the “target” of:

• “Smear campaigns”
• “Harassment”
• “Frivolous complaints”
• “Political attacks”

Meanwhile, the original issue—late discovery, altered records, plea irregularities—fades into procedural fog.

The accused official claims reputational harm.

The whistleblower becomes the threat.

That is DARVO in a courthouse.

---

Why It’s So Effective in Criminal Courts

Because judges rely heavily on prosecutor credibility.

Because defendants and their families have limited institutional power.

Because probation reports, restitution figures, and plea representations often sit in gray zones where ambiguity can be exploited.

Because appellate courts defer to lower-court fact findings unless the record is clearly developed.

If DARVO tactics successfully frame a critic as irrational or vindictive, the institutional reflex becomes protection, not scrutiny.

And that reflex compounds.

---

Institutional Betrayal in Legal Systems

Freyd’s later work on institutional betrayal explains why organizations protect insiders over complainants. Prosecutor offices are hierarchical, reputation-driven environments.

When misconduct allegations surface, offices face two options:

1. Correct the error publicly
2. Protect the office narrative

Option two feels safer in the short term.

Long term, it destroys legitimacy.

---

The Constitutional Problem

Prosecutors are state actors.

When they retaliate against critics or distort the record to shield prior misconduct, it implicates:

• Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
• First Amendment protections against retaliation
• Potential liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983³

This is not about feelings. It is about structural fairness.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence and correct false impressions.

Failure to do so is not strategy. It is a constitutional breach.

---

How to Counter DARVO in Legal Contexts

If you’re dealing with it, DO NOT respond emotionally. You respond surgically.

1. Anchor everything to the record
   Transcripts. Docket entries. Metadata. Dates.
2. Refuse personality framing
   “This is about the record, not about me.”
3. Preserve communications immediately
   Litigation holds matter.
4. Separate rhetoric from documentation
   Courts rule on facts, not tone.
5. Escalate through formal oversight channels
   Judicial review, disciplinary bodies, appellate filings.

DARVO collapses under documentation. It thrives in ambiguity.

---

Why This Case Pattern Matters

When prosecutors use DARVO tactics, the message is chilling:

If you question us, you become the problem.

That dynamic discourages oversight, silences defendants, and erodes public trust. Criminal justice already operates with massive power asymmetry. Reversing victim and offender inside that system compounds the imbalance.

Accountability should not require surviving character assassination.

It should require compliance with the Constitution.

---

Scholarly Sources

• Bellin, J. (2019). The power of prosecutors. New York University Law Review, 94(2), 171–212. https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NYULawReview-94-2-Bellin.pdf
• Freyd, J. J. (1997). II. Violations of Power, Adaptive Blindness and Betrayal Trauma Theory. Feminism & Psychology, 7(1), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353597071004 (Original work published 1997)
• Gershman, B. L. (1998). The prosecutor’s duty to truth. Criminal Law Bulletin, 34(2), 131–154.https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/lawfaculty/article/1537/&path_info=gershman22clb131.pdf
• Medwed, D. S. (2012). Prosecution complex: America’s race to convict and its impact on the innocent. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2103252
• American Bar Association. Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8.

---

1. Brady v. Maryland 373 US 83 (1963) ↩︎
2. Giglio v. United States 405 US 150 (1972) ↩︎
3. 42 USC Code Section 1983 ↩︎