HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742.jpg
2.41 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / law review article printout
File Size:
2.41 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 28 of a 52-page production) included in a file by attorney David Schoen for the House Oversight Committee. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), quoting Senator Kyl and citing case law (State v. Timmendequas) to argue that victims have a due process right to be heard, particularly regarding venue transfer decisions, to minimize their inconvenience and trauma.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Schoen | Attorney |
Name appears in the footer, indicating this document was part of his file or submission.
|
| Senator Kyl | Senator |
Quoted regarding the intent of victims' rights legislation and the CVRA.
|
| Timmendequas | Defendant |
Defendant in a cited New Jersey capital case (State v. Timmendequas).
|
| Fletcher | Legal Scholar/Author |
Cited in footnote 211 regarding venue changes.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned as the legislative body intended to afford crime victims due process.
|
|
| New Jersey Supreme Court |
Court that decided State v. Timmendequas.
|
|
| New Jersey Legislature |
Enacted the Crime Victim's Bill of Rights.
|
|
| BYU Law Review |
Source of the text (2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835).
|
Timeline (2 events)
1999
April 22, 2004
Statement by Senator Kyl in the Congressional Record regarding victims' rights.
US Congress
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the cited case State v. Timmendequas.
|
Relationships (1)
David Schoen's name appears on a document stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT.
Key Quotes (4)
"Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742.jpg
Quote #1
"Clearly, Congress intended to afford crime victims a broad right to due process in criminal proceedings."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742.jpg
Quote #2
"Concluding that victims have a right to be heard on transfer decision does not mean, of course, that they will dictate the transfer decision."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742.jpg
Quote #3
"One of the enumerated rights guaranteed for victims is 'to have inconveniences associated with participation in the criminal justice process minimized to the fullest extent possible.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,224 characters)
Page 28 of 52
2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *882
2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *882
victims be treated with fairness. This is a broad provision intended to be broadly construed and to give victims a right to due
process. As Senator Kyl has stated,
process. As Senator Kyl has stated,
The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of
these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of
crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct
Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judicial branches, to treat victims of crime with the
respect they deserve and to afford them due process. 209
these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of
crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct
Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judicial branches, to treat victims of crime with the
respect they deserve and to afford them due process. 209
[*883] Clearly, Congress intended to afford crime victims a broad right to due process in criminal proceedings. Due process,
of course, uncontroversially includes a right to be heard. 210 Thus, victims should be heard before the court makes a transfer
decision.
of course, uncontroversially includes a right to be heard. 210 Thus, victims should be heard before the court makes a transfer
decision.
Concluding that victims have a right to be heard on transfer decision does not mean, of course, that they will dictate the transfer
decision. In some cases, the defendant will be able to establish sufficiently pervasive prejudice in a particular community to
entitle him to a change of venue to protect his constitutional rights. 211 But the limited point here is that victims may provide
an important perspective that the judge ought to consider in reaching a decision. Moreover, even if the judge decides to transfer
a case, the victims may have valuable information for the judge on where to transfer the case to (e.g., to an adjacent state rather
than a distant one).
decision. In some cases, the defendant will be able to establish sufficiently pervasive prejudice in a particular community to
entitle him to a change of venue to protect his constitutional rights. 211 But the limited point here is that victims may provide
an important perspective that the judge ought to consider in reaching a decision. Moreover, even if the judge decides to transfer
a case, the victims may have valuable information for the judge on where to transfer the case to (e.g., to an adjacent state rather
than a distant one).
An illustration of the general approach of the proposed rule comes from State v. Timmendequas, 212 a capital case decided by
the New Jersey Supreme Court. In Timmendequas, the trial judge imported a jury from a distant community rather than force
the family of a murdered young girl to travel to another district. Construing New Jersey state law provisions similar to the
CVRA's, the New Jersey Supreme Court explained that the trial judge properly considered the views of the victim's family:
the New Jersey Supreme Court. In Timmendequas, the trial judge imported a jury from a distant community rather than force
the family of a murdered young girl to travel to another district. Construing New Jersey state law provisions similar to the
CVRA's, the New Jersey Supreme Court explained that the trial judge properly considered the views of the victim's family:
Over the past decade, both nationwide and in New Jersey, a significant amount of legislation has been passed implementing
increased levels of protection for victims of crime. Specifically, in New Jersey, the Legislature enacted the "Crime Victim's Bill
of Rights." That amendment marked the culmination of the Legislature's efforts to increase the participation of crime victims in
the criminal justice system.
[*884]
increased levels of protection for victims of crime. Specifically, in New Jersey, the Legislature enacted the "Crime Victim's Bill
of Rights." That amendment marked the culmination of the Legislature's efforts to increase the participation of crime victims in
the criminal justice system.
[*884]
The purpose of the Victim's Rights Amendment was to "enhance and protect the necessary role of crime victims and witnesses
in the criminal justice process. In furtherance of [that goal], the improved treatment of these persons should be assured through
the establishment of specific rights." One of the enumerated rights guaranteed for victims is "to have inconveniences associated
with participation in the criminal justice process minimized to the fullest extent possible."
. . . .
in the criminal justice process. In furtherance of [that goal], the improved treatment of these persons should be assured through
the establishment of specific rights." One of the enumerated rights guaranteed for victims is "to have inconveniences associated
with participation in the criminal justice process minimized to the fullest extent possible."
. . . .
... The [trial] court explicitly stated that it was not favoring the rights of the victims over those of defendant. Rather, it was
simply taking their concerns into consideration, as it had not done previously. Taking the concerns of the victim's family into
simply taking their concerns into consideration, as it had not done previously. Taking the concerns of the victim's family into
________________________________________________________________________________
209 150 Cong. Rec. S10,910-11 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added).
209 150 Cong. Rec. S10,910-11 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added).
210 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (acknowledging that "the fundamental requisite of due process
of law is the opportunity to be heard" (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914))).
of law is the opportunity to be heard" (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914))).
211 See, e.g., Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (holding that prisoner should have been granted change of venue where pre-trial publicity
caused prejudice). But cf. Fletcher, supra note 155, at 252 (calling for abolition of a defendant's right to change venue because it "is, in effect,
to accord the defense a whole peremptory challenge against the entire community").
caused prejudice). But cf. Fletcher, supra note 155, at 252 (calling for abolition of a defendant's right to change venue because it "is, in effect,
to accord the defense a whole peremptory challenge against the entire community").
212 737 A.2d 55 (N.J. 1999).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document