NVCAN; Case Histories


	Case Histories

We need your help in finding cases that document and verify the claim that, yes, even with thousands of victims' rights statutes and 32 state constitutional amendments, victims are still being denied such basic rights as the right to be notified of their case status, the right to attend trial, the right to be informed of the release of their offender, the right to be heard at sentencing, the right to restitution, and so on.

While we are aware of some recent cases where victims' rights were violated, with your help, we need to know about many more to further strengthen the argument in support of an amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, we need to respond to the argument that since there is no legal conflict between a defendant's Constitutional rights and victims' rights, there is no need for a Constitutional "fix." To do so, we need to demonstrate that, at the "street level" of the criminal justice system, too many officials are slow to honor the victims' rights established in statutes and state constitutions. In some instances, we understand that some front line justice officials are purposefully denying victims their rights to be informed of, present, and heard at key decision points (among other rights), and are basing these decisions on Constitutional rights they believe belong to the accused or convicted offender.

Amendment supporters must be able to document these situations. Click here for some examples. We are asking for summaries of cases that meet these criteria:

A decision-maker (police officer, prosecutor, judge, probation or parole officer, or parole board) consciously chose not to honor a right conferred by a statute or state constitutional amendment on a crime victim, and
He or she based or appears to have based the decision on some right of the accused or convicted offender or to have acted to protect the accused or convicted offender's desire for "fair" treatment.

Clearly, the most persuasive cases are those where the decision-maker makes explicit reference to the defendant's Constitutional rights. Ideally, a transcript containing the decision-maker's statement should be available, but a victim's remembered conversation or a newspaper report of the event can be just as useful.

Please take a few minutes to send us details of recent (the last 2 to 4 years or so) cases where a victim's statutory or state constitutional rights were violated. We know that very few of these cases have reached the appellate level, but we still need some types of citation if you have it, such as a case name and numbers. Please be certain to include the following information, if applicable:

Case Name (and case number)
Victims (list names only with permission)
Judge
Prosecutor
Location
Date
Issue/violation

[Homepage]

Examples of Victim Rights Violations

Case Name: State v. Heath Burch	Victims: Frances and Cleo Davis
Judge: Steven Platt	Prosecutor: Raganath Manthrapragada
Location: Prince George's County, Maryland	Date: March 1996
Issue/violation: Written Victim Impact Statement -- Court prohibited the acceptance of written VIS despite the statutory and Constitutional right. Only allowed one sworn survivor to speak at sentencing. Maryland law provides that in any case in which the death penalty or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is requested under Article 27, Section 412, a presentence investigation, including a victim impact statement, shall be completed by the Division of Parole and Probation and shall be considered by the court or jury before the separate sentencing proceeding is concluded.

Case Name: State v. Lawrence Horn CT 72051 Victims: Mildred and Trevor Horn, Janice Roberts Saunders

Judge: Ann Harrington Prosecutors: Robert Dean/Teresa Whalen

Location:Montgomery to Frederick, Maryland Date: May1996

Issue/violation: Victims were encouraged to prepare written victim impact statements to meet a deadline. They completed the written statements only to be told just before proceedings that the court would not allow wirtten VIS. In contrast to their very limited input, there was an excesive list of people speaking for the defendant. Only one person was allowed to briefly speak for each victim.

Case Name: State v. John Smith CT 333456 Victims:R.G.

Judge: Theodore Collins Prosecutor: Barbara Jones

Location: Date: January 1994

Issue/violation: Sexual assault survivor R.G. was told to wait in a victim assistance room of the courthouse for approximately eight hours for unexplained delays. Prosecutor Barbara Jones then informed R.G. that a plea bargain had been agreed to and that there would be no trial. The victim had no opportunity to express her views on the plea bargain to the judge, despite the fact that she strongly objected to the terms of the plea agreement. Eight months following the plea bargain, the victim is being subjected to repeated harassment by the assailant.

Case Name: State v. Eric Joseph Tirado CT 21682 Victims:State Trooper Theodore D. Wolf

Judge:Raymond Kane Prosecutors: MIchael Rexrod and Timothy Wolf

Location:Howard County, MD Date:April 1991

Issue/violation: Notice of rights; presence at trial. "By chance" an advocate met and put the victim's widow in touch with an attorney to represent her right to be present at trial. Despite a MD law providing for this right, the defense argued that the mere presence of the widow at trial would cause her victim impact statement at sentencing (upon a conviction) to be inflammatory and prejudicial to his client. When the private attorney made a motion to the court on behalf of the widow, the defense argued that he had no standing in court since he neither represented the state nor the defendant. Earlier, the prosecutor was unwilling to make a similar motion, but he finally joined in the motion with the private attorney. At this point, the court agreed to review the MD victims' rights law, and agreed that she had a right to attend the trial. This case demonstrates the extraordinary measures that victims must take to ensure that rights "guaranteed" to them by statute are actually delivered.

[Back] [Top] [Homepage]

Case Name: State v. Lawrence Horn CT 72051	Victims: Mildred and Trevor Horn, Janice Roberts Saunders
Judge: Ann Harrington	Prosecutors: Robert Dean/Teresa Whalen
Location:Montgomery to Frederick, Maryland	Date: May1996
Issue/violation: Victims were encouraged to prepare written victim impact statements to meet a deadline. They completed the written statements only to be told just before proceedings that the court would not allow wirtten VIS. In contrast to their very limited input, there was an excesive list of people speaking for the defendant. Only one person was allowed to briefly speak for each victim.

Case Name: State v. John Smith CT 333456	Victims:R.G.
Judge: Theodore Collins	Prosecutor: Barbara Jones
Location:	Date: January 1994
Issue/violation: Sexual assault survivor R.G. was told to wait in a victim assistance room of the courthouse for approximately eight hours for unexplained delays. Prosecutor Barbara Jones then informed R.G. that a plea bargain had been agreed to and that there would be no trial. The victim had no opportunity to express her views on the plea bargain to the judge, despite the fact that she strongly objected to the terms of the plea agreement. Eight months following the plea bargain, the victim is being subjected to repeated harassment by the assailant.

Case Name: State v. Eric Joseph Tirado CT 21682	Victims:State Trooper Theodore D. Wolf
Judge:Raymond Kane	Prosecutors: MIchael Rexrod and Timothy Wolf
Location:Howard County, MD	Date:April 1991
Issue/violation: Notice of rights; presence at trial. "By chance" an advocate met and put the victim's widow in touch with an attorney to represent her right to be present at trial. Despite a MD law providing for this right, the defense argued that the mere presence of the widow at trial would cause her victim impact statement at sentencing (upon a conviction) to be inflammatory and prejudicial to his client. When the private attorney made a motion to the court on behalf of the widow, the defense argued that he had no standing in court since he neither represented the state nor the defendant. Earlier, the prosecutor was unwilling to make a similar motion, but he finally joined in the motion with the private attorney. At this point, the court agreed to review the MD victims' rights law, and agreed that she had a right to attend the trial. This case demonstrates the extraordinary measures that victims must take to ensure that rights "guaranteed" to them by statute are actually delivered.