PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT 

THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.J. Res. 106 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Serial No. 112–113 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 

TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–966 PDF 2012

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT 

THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.J. Res. 106 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Serial No. 112–113 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Page 

THE RESOLUTION 

H.J. Res. 106, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to protect the rights of crime victims ...................................................... 2 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....................... 1 

The Honorable Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............................ 54 

WITNESSES 

Brooks Douglass, Carrollton, TX 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Jesselyn McCurdy, Senior Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties 

Union 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68 

Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, 

S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 77 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 80 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution 

Letter from Jan Scully, President, National District Attorneys Association ................................................................................................................. 7 

Letters from crime victims’ organizations and families of crime victims .... 8 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Supplement to the Testimony of Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 

University of Utah ............................................................................................... 202 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution .......................................................................................................... 207 

(1) 

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO 

PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Scott and Quigley. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Jacki Pick, Counsel; Sarah Vance, 

Clerk; (Minority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; 

and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. First, let me just say thank you to all of you for 

your patience. We had to vote on the floor, which slowed us down. 

It has been the proverbial train wreck in slow motion. So thank 

you for your patience. 

Today the Subcommittee on the Constitution examines H.J. Res. 

106, the bipartisan victims’ rights amendment to the Constitution, 

also sometimes called the VRA. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

2 


RES106-1.eps
3 


RES106-2.eps
4 


RES106-3.eps
5 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the Committee at any time and he may have to 

do that in this case for a few moments. 

Victims’ rights legislation and amendments have enjoyed broad 

support at the State and Federal levels, passing by 80 percent margins in the States and securing influential bipartisan support at 

the highest levels of the Federal Government. Senators Kyl and 

Feinstein have championed victims’ rights in the Senate, and multiple House and Senate hearings have been devoted to advancing 

victims’ rights. 

Despite the best efforts of the State and Federal level to bring 

balance through statutes or State constitutional amendments, 

these efforts have been proven to be inadequate whenever they 

come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, 

sheer inertia, or the mere mention of accused’s rights, even when 

those rights are not genuinely threatened. 

As the U.S. Justice Department concluded after careful review of 

the issue, the existing, quote, ‘‘haphazard patchwork of rules’’ is, 

quote, ‘‘not sufficiently consistent, comprehensive, or authoritative 

to safeguard victims’ rights.’’ The VRA would specifically enumerate rights for crime victims, including the right to fairness, respect, and dignity; the right to reasonable notice of and not to be 

excluded from public proceedings related to the offense; the right 

to be heard at any release, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding involving any right established in the amendment; the 

right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; the right to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused; the right to 

due consideration of the crime victim’s safety; and the right to restitution. Moreover, the amendment expressly provides standing for 

the victim to enforce enumerated rights. 

Supporters of a victims’ rights amendment have included President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President H.W. 

Bush, George H.W. Bush; Attorneys General Janet Reno, John 

Ashcroft, and Alberto Gonzales; Professor Larry Tribe of the Harvard Law School; the National Governors’ Association; 50 State attorneys general; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; the National Association of Parents of Murdered Children; the National Organization for Victims’ Assistance; and finally, the National District Attorneys Association, the voice of the Nation’s prosecutors. 

And on this point I find it ironic that the Democratic-invited witness from the ACLU claims to speak on behalf of Nation’s prosecutors when she writes in her testimony that prosecutorial discretion 

would be compromised by this amendment, and that prosecutors 

would become less able to convict criminals; that their right to be 

heard hurts the effort of prosecutors and the cause of victims. In 

fact, the National District Attorneys Association sent us letters just 

this week saying just the opposite. And I will quote their letter. 

Quote: The National District Attorneys Association, representing 

America’s prosecutors, wishes to express strong support for 

H.J.Res. 106, the victims’ rights amendment. Inclusion of victims’ 

rights in our U.S. Constitution will ensure that victims’ rights and 

crime victims will be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect 

within our criminal justice system, and if within that system, they 

will be afforded needed and meaningful rights, including the opporVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:16 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\042612\73966.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
6 

tunity to participate at all critical stages of their cases. Inasmuch 

as America’s prosecutors are the staunchest advocates for victims 

within our criminal justice system, we are proud to advocate on 

their behalf within the halls of Congress. We call upon this Congress to pass the amendment and the States to ratify it, unquote. 

Now I would ask unanimous consent to enter this letter from the 

NDAA into the record. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

7 

Mr. FRANKS. In addition, my office has received more than 30 letters from crime victims’ organizations and the families of crime victims, which we will add to the hearing as well—the record as well. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


73966A.eps
8 


73966B-1.eps
9 


73966B-2.eps
10 


73966B-3.eps
11 


73966B-4.eps
12 


73966B-5.eps
13 


73966B-6.eps
14 


73966B-7.eps
15 


73966B-8.eps
16 


73966B-9.eps
17 


73966B-10.eps
18 


73966B-11.eps
19 


73966B-12.eps
20 


73966B-13.eps
21 


73966B-14.eps
22 


73966B-15.eps
23 


73966B-16.eps
24 


73966B-17.eps
25 


73966B-18.eps
26 


73966B-19.eps
27 


73966B-20.eps
28 


73966B-21.eps
29 


73966B-22.eps
30 


73966B-23.eps
31 


73966B-24.eps
32 


73966B-25.eps
33 


73966B-26.eps
34 


73966B-27.eps
35 


73966B-28.eps
36 


73966B-29.eps
37 


73966B-30.eps
38 


73966B-31.eps
39 


73966B-32.eps
40 


73966B-33.eps
41 


73966B-34.eps
42 


73966B-35.eps
43 


73966B-36.eps
44 


73966B-37.eps
45 


73966B-38.eps
46 


73966B-39.eps
47 


73966B-40.eps
48 


73966B-41.eps
49 


73966B-42.eps
50 


73966B-43.eps
51 


73966B-44.eps
52 


73966B-45.eps
53 


73966B-46.eps
54 

Mr. FRANKS. I would look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today on this critical issue, and I thank you all for coming. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member, in this case Mr. Quigley, for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the Chairman for putting this together and all of our panelists for 

being here today. 

I need to apologize in advance. There is a markup next door in 

which I will go vote and come back, so don’t take it as any sort of 

insult or slight. 

Today we consider a subject of great importance to every Member 

of this House, our responsibility to ensure that victims of crime 

have their rights respected, their needs met, and that everyone in 

the criminal justice system plays their part in assisting people who 

have suffered great harm. 

It is especially suitable that we are discussing these vital issues 

during National Crime Victims’ Week. There was a time in this 

country when victims of crime were not treated respectfully. At 

times crime victims felt, not without justification, that they were 

considered almost extraneous to the process. 

With great awareness and legal protections enacted at the State 

and Federal levels, victims receive all kinds of assistance, including 

counseling, financial assistance, notification, and the respect to 

which anyone who has suffered harm is entitled. We offer both financial and technical assistance to States to help them provide 

services to crime victims. 

So while we have made great progress, we can and should do 

much more. We could provide adequate funding for crime victim 

programs. We could provide proper training and resources to Federal, State, and local law enforcement to ensure that our existing 

laws, which require notice and assistance to crime victims, are fully 

enforced. 

One thing we can do immediately is to reauthorize and fully fund 

the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark piece of legislation 

that provides invaluable resources to victims of some of the most 

heinous crimes. This vital legislation has not been reexamined in 

7 years, and it is in need of some updates to ensure full protection 

of victims. For instance, the bill needs to be updated to include language that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals from discrimination at domestic violence shelters. It also needs 

to be amended to ensure undocumented workers who are victims 

of abuse feel safe reporting that abuse to authorities. And finally, 

the bill must be expanded to give American Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians who have abused Indian women. 

As we discuss protecting victims today, I can think of no better 

way of safeguarding their rights than updating, fully funding, and 

reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act to ensure protection 

of the rights of all victims of abuse. 

Crime victims also need to see the guilty parties punished and 

to be reassured that neither they nor anyone else will have to fear 

further victimization by that individual. In that regard, I have concerns about this proposed constitutional amendment. 

We have heard from law enforcement professionals that it will do 

more to obstruct the wheels of justice than to provide victims with 

55 

the assistance they need to put their lives back together. For instance, under most versions of the amendment, victims would have 

a constitutional right to call for a faster disposition of a matter in 

their case. While certainly we want to see quick resolution of such 

cases, allowing the victim to demand a faster trial may infringe on 

the right of the accused person to adequately prepare. It may also 

impede the ability of a prosecutor to prepare. Similarly, giving victims the right to attend the entire criminal trial, even if hearing 

the testimony of other victims, could compromise the victim’s testimony, could jeopardize the fairness of the trial. 

We have a law, the crime victims’ right law, that achieves all the 

objectives sought by the proposed amendment. Let’s look at improving and fully funding that law before we jump to amend the Constitution. 

As Mr. Cassell points out in his testimony, congressional funding 

for the National Crime Victims Law Institute clinics has been diminished. As a result, six clinics have stopped providing rights, enforcement, legal representation. The CVRA vision of an extensive 

network of clinics supporting crime victims’ rights clearly has not 

been achieved. 

The Crime Victims’ Right Act could also be improved by, for example, more clearly defining what is meant to be reasonably heard 

in court. Offering symbolic gestures to crime victims and weakening legislation that would provide assistance to them is not the 

best way to help victims of crime. Debating yet another constitutional amendment that we know from long experience is going nowhere will certainly not help victims of crime. 

I want to thank the Chairman and welcome our panel today, and 

I look forward to their testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman. 

And without objection, other Members’ opening statements will 

be made part of the record. 

I will now introduce our witnesses. Brooks Douglass is a lawyer, 

a former State senator in Oklahoma, and a film producer and 

actor. Mr. Douglass’ 2010 film, Heaven’s Rain, is the true story of 

the 1979 tragic murder of his parents, Dr. and Pastor R. Douglass 

and Marilyn Douglass, and the attempted murders of his younger 

sister and himself. 

Two criminals entered the Douglass home, bound the family, 

raped the 12-year-old daughter, and shot all four members of the 

family. Only the two children survived. 

Mr. Douglass went on to earn his M.B.A., J.D. and an M.P.A. At 

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He now devotes his life 

to working for victims’ rights. 

Jesselyn McCurdy is a senior legislative counsel for the American 

Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, with a focus on civil liberties in 

the areas of criminal justice. Prior, she was a counsel for the U.S. 

House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Ms. 

McCurdy has also worked as the assistant section director of the 

American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. She was a staff attorney for the American Prosecutors 

Research Institute, affiliated with the National District Attorneys 

56 

Association. Ms. McCurdy received her J.D. from Catholic University of America and the Columbus School of Law. 

Paul Cassell is an endowed chair at the University of Utah College of Law. Professor Cassell received a J.D. from Stanford University, where he was president of the Stanford Law Review. He 

clerked for then-Judge Antonin Scalia, D.C. circuit at the time, and 

for Chief Justice Warren Burger. He then served as an Associate 

Deputy Attorney General; an assistant U.S. attorney, EDVA in Virginia; and a U.S. district court judge in Utah. Professor Cassell resigned his Federal judgeship to teach and litigate issues to advance 

victims’ rights. 

And I would thank all the witnesses for appearing today. We appreciate you taking the time to come out and speak to us on this 

very important issue. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. And I would ask each of the witnesses 

to summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help 

you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. 

When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 

minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 

signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Before I recognize the witnesses, it is the tradition of the Subcommittee that they be sworn. So if you would please stand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Also, to the witnesses, please turn on your microphone before 

speaking. That nearly gets about half of the witnesses. 

And I would recognize our first witness for 5 minutes. Mr. Douglass, thank you for being here, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF BROOKS DOUGLASS, CARROLLTON, TX 

Mr. DOUGLASS. First, thank you, Chairman Franks, for considering this issue and for giving me the honor to come before this 

Committee and testify. As you said, it is an incredibly important 

issue. And really what I wanted to do was tell a little bit about my 

story, and you eloquently presented most of it, or a lot of it, for me. 

But as you said, in 1979, Glen Ake and Steven Hatch came to 

my front door. I let them in to use the phone. They over the next 

few hours, hog-tied us all face down on our living room floor in our 

home, took turns raping my 12-year-old sister Leslie, and then sat 

down and ate the dinner that my mother had been fixing, and then 

shot us all in the back and left us for dead. My mother and father 

both died there in front of me. And Leslie and I were able to get 

out of the house, get to—drive to a doctor’s house and get medical 

help. 

That began our experience with the criminal justice system, beginning right at the start of speaking to the Oklahoma Highway 

Patrol, even when we didn’t know if we were going to survive or 

not. 

About 6 weeks later Glen Ake and Steven Hatch were caught. 

They had also killed two people in south Texas. That time they 

shot them with a shotgun so they made sure they finished them 

off. I went on to college. Well, they were both tried within a year 

and given the death sentence. 

57 

Over the next few years, I went on to college, was called back 

three times in the course of those 41⁄2 years that I was in college 

to testify again against Steven Hatch in particular. In my senior 

year the Glen Ake case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It 

was reversed and remanded for a new trial, which was held 7 years 

after the original trial—after the murders, and he was given life 

sentences at that time with possibility of parole because there was 

no life without parole in Oklahoma. 

So all told—we went back and testified then. All told, my sister 

and I testified nine different times against these guys that committed the crime. Seventeen years later, in 1996, Steven Hatch was 

finally executed. 

There were things that happened within the system, like the day 

we got out of the hospital, when we were discharged, we were 

handed a bill for over $500 that included the rape exam kit that 

was used on my sister Leslie to collect evidence of the rape. There 

was no provision in the law to reimburse us for that. I paid $117 

to get my car back that had been impounded as evidence, and there 

was no provision in the law to reimburse us. 

In 1990, I was elected to the State senate, and as I said in my 

statement, I would love to say it is for lots of noble reasons, but 

the fact is I just needed a job, and there was an opening. So I ran 

at 26 and was elected, and was 27 when I took office and, you 

know, had the chance to—or I went on the judiciary committee 

about a year later or the appropriations committee. And I was on 

the subcommittee that funded the judiciary. Just then I got a call 

from a reporter saying—and I was avoiding victims’ rights. I just 

wanted to pretend it wasn’t an issue, I think, and didn’t want to 

look like a crusader. So I didn’t take that up until I got this call 

saying that the Hatch case was now the slowest-moving case on 

death row in Oklahoma. After 13 years it was on the third step of 

a nine-step appellate process, and a lot of it was because for 2 

years the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had lost the file in 

the case. 

So going on the appropriations committee right then, I had a 

chance to discuss this with the chief judge and, you know, keeping 

it as impersonal as I could, but at the end of the day, I couldn’t 

help myself. I finally said, you know, until you guys find that file, 

get a decision handed down, and I really don’t care what the decision is, you had better learn how to do your job with a number 2 

pencil and a big cheap writing tablet because that is all you are 

going to have. And fortunately the other Members of the Subcommittee agreed with me. But miraculously they got the decision 

handed down within about 30 days. 

Our experiences, you know, in dealing with the criminal justice 

system, there are a lot of things that I did as a senator. There were 

28 pieces of legislation that I initiated, I sponsored, that got signed 

into law in Oklahoma, including one of them being a constitutional 

amendment, as you mentioned. 

The problem is that they are routinely ignored when it is not 

convenient for the court and even the prosecution. The prosecution 

does the best that they can. They have victim-witness coordinators. 

They try to do what we have asked them to do in the statute. But, 

yeah, there have been multiple times, one as recently as a few 

58 

months ago, where I got a call from a victim who was not allowed 

to give a victim impact statement. 

So I see that my time is up, and I will take whatever questions 

you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Douglass follows:] 


BD-1.eps
59 


BD-2.eps
60 


BD-3.eps
61 


BD-4.eps
62 


BD-5.eps
63 


BD-6.eps
64 


BD-7.eps
65 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Douglass, very much. And 

your testimony that you ran at 26 and elected at 27 also happens 

to be my own testimony in the legislature, and I would just caution 

you that that can lead to some pretty frightening ends. So you 

might want to be careful there. 


BD-8.eps
66 

Mr. DOUGLASS. They just told us where the bathroom was for 

about a year. 

Mr. FRANKS. Ms. McCurdy, I would now recognize you, ma’am, 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JESSELYN McCURDY, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE 

COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Ms. McCurdy, could you pull that microphone a little closer to you? 

Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you. 

I would like to thank Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Nadler, and also acknowledge my former boss Representative Scott for 

inviting the American Civil Liberties Union to testify at today’s 

hearing on the victims’ rights amendment. 

The victims’ rights constitutional amendment introduced by the 

Chairman would extend various rights to all crime victims. This 

amendment would profoundly alter the Nation’s founding charter. 

It would fundamentally compromise the Bill of Rights protections 

for accused persons in every Federal, State, and local criminal case. 

While the proposed amendment would attempt to codify a role 

for criminal victims in the criminal justice process, the ACLU is 

concerned that it will be difficult to provide the rights of victims 

while preserving the constitutional rights of people accused of 

crimes whose fundamental liberty interest is directly at stake. 

The Framers created a two-party adversarial criminal justice 

system with the public prosecutor, a criminal defendant, and a 

neutral judge. The Framers were aware of the enormous power of 

the government to deprive a person of life, liberty, and property. 

The VRA will jeopardize the basic safeguards put in place to protect criminal defendants by infringing on their presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial. 

In the past 220 years, the Federal Constitution has been amended only 17 times. Amending the Constitution is a serious matter 

and should be reserved for those issues where there are no other 

alternatives available. Many of the provisions of the victims’ rights 

amendment reflect laudable goals, but it is unnecessary to pass a 

constitutional amendment to achieve them. 

On October 30, 2004, Congress enacted the Crime Victims’ 

Rights Act of 2004, legislation that enumerates eight statutory 

rights for victims of crime. In addition, every State has either a 

State constitutional amendment or statute protecting victims’ 

rights. 

The constitutional protections afforded the accused in criminal 

proceedings are among the most precious and essential liberties 

provided in the Constitution. The VRA undermines the presumption of innocence by conferring rights to an accuser at the time in 

a criminal case when the accuser is still presumed innocent. Not 

every person accused of a crime is actually guilty of committing a 

crime, but giving the accuser the constitutional status of victim 

could impact the judge and jury, making it extraordinarily difficult 

for fact-finders to remain unbiased when the victim is present at 

67 

every court proceeding, and potentially prejudicing those who will 

determine guilt or innocence. 

The VRA makes the accuser a third party in a criminal case even 

before a judge or jury has determined the accused is actually a victim. 

The VRA would give crime victims a constitutional right to attend the entire criminal trial, even if the victim is going to be a 

witness in the case. In many instances, the testimony of a prosecution witness will be compromised if the person has heard the testimony of other witnesses. Typically trial witnesses are barred from 

the proceedings prior to their testimony for this very reason. Despite the possibility of tainting his or her testimony, the VRA gives 

the victim a constitutional right to be present, even over the objections of the defense or prosecution. 

The crime victims’ rights was established in October of 2004, establishing eight rights for Federal crime victims and two mechanisms to enforce those rights. Congress enacted CVRA after another version of the victims’ rights constitutional amendment 

failed. In passing the CVRA instead of a constitutional amendment, 

Congress intended to preserve the system the Framers created, 

with the public prosecutor charged with acting in the public interest, and a criminal defendant with a full panoply of constitutional 

rights, and a neutral judge. 

The CVRA also directed the General Accounting Office to conduct 

an evaluation of limitations of the CVRA. GAO found that there 

were very few victims having asserted their CVRA rights in court. 

According to the GAO, several key issues have developed since 

the implementation of the CVRA that require the courts to interpret provisions of the law. For example, it is unclear whether the 

CVRA applies to victims of local offenses prosecuted in the District 

of Columbia. It is also unclear what stage of the criminal justice 

process the CVRA rights begin to apply and what standard of appellate review should be used for writs of mandamus. These should 

all be noncontroversial changes that Congress could make to the 

legislation in order to facilitate and exercise the victims’ rights 

without passing a constitutional amendment. 

The VRA would give victims rights at least equal the defendants’ 

constitutional rights; however, some of these same rights are given 

in the statute. 

The ACLU opposes any effort to enact a victims’ rights constitutional amendment because it would undermine the presumption of 

innocence and the right to a fair trial for the accused. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. McCurdy. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCurdy follows:] 

68 


JM-1.eps
69 


JM-2.eps
70 


JM-3.eps
71 


JM-4.eps
72 


JM-5.eps
73 


JM-6.eps
74 


JM-7.eps
75 


JM-8.eps
76 


JM-9.eps
77 

Mr. FRANKS. And I would now recognize Professor Cassell for 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL G. CASSELL, RONALD N. BOYCE PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL LAW, S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 

Mr. CASSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here today—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Professor Cassell, let us try to pull that a little closer. I know it is always—— 

Mr. CASSELL. Is that better there? 

Mr. FRANKS. Not much. Is the microphone on? 

Mr. CASSELL. Is the microphone on? Is it on now? Is that working? 

Mr. FRANKS. Not very well, sir. Let us try to pull it even closer. 

Mr. CASSELL. All the way up here. Is that better? 

Mr. FRANKS. I guess it will have to work. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CASSELL. All right. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify 

in support of House Joint Resolution 106, the victims’ rights 

amendment. 

The victims’ rights amendment would expand civil liberties by 

adding a bill of rights for crime victims to our Federal Constitution. 

In doing so, the victims’ rights amendment would build on the experience of more than 30 States who have all amended their constitutions to add protections for victims’ rights. 

Now, while these efforts have been valuable, they have not been 

fully successful in protecting crime victims. As Attorney General 

Janet Reno reported after a comprehensive review by the Justice 

Department, these significant State efforts simply are not sufficiently consistent, comprehensive, or authoritative to safeguard victims’ rights. 

Research has shown that the crime victims most likely to be deprived of their rights under the current patchwork regime are racial minorities, residents of inner cities, and the poor. Only an unequivocal constitutional mandate will translate paper promises into 

real guarantees for crime victims. 

The victims’ rights amendment builds on the fact that there is 

a national consensus that crime victims deserve respect in our 

criminal justice process. It would protect basic rights, like the right 

to be notified about court hearings, the right to attend those hearings, and the right to be heard at relevant points in the process, 

like bail hearings, plea hearings and sentencing. These are the 

kinds of rights that our Constitution is typically and properly concerned about, the rights of individuals to participate in governmental processes that seriously affect their lives. As President 

Clinton explained in endorsing the victims’ rights amendment, participation in all forms of government is the essence of democracy. 

Criticisms of the amendment are often based on uninformed 

speculation about how the language might be misinterpreted or 

misapplied by courts. But as I detail at greater length in my written testimony, the victims’ rights amendment draws on the experience in the various States and Federal legislation that is out there. 

For example, the victims’ rights amendment begins by promising 

78 

all victims that their rights to, quote, fairness, respect, and dignity 

shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State. 

Similar provisions are found in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and 

in the State constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, 

New Jersey, Texas, Wisconsin, and my home State of Utah. State 

and Federal courts have taken that language and applied it without the kinds of difficulties that have been speculated by the ACLU 

or other opponents. I have never heard any serious argument about 

giving—against giving victims the right to be treated with fairness, 

dignity, and respect in the process, and these rights should be enshrined in our Constitution. 

Now, sometimes it is argued, as it has been this afternoon, that 

crime victims’ rights will come at the expense of defendants’ rights. 

But House Joint Resolution 106 is a very carefully crafted measure 

that adds victims’ rights that would coexist alongside with defendants’ rights. For example, paralleling a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, House Joint Resolution 106 gives victims the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. According to Harvard law professor Larry Tribe, who has endorsed a 

version of the amendment, these rights cannot collide since, by definition, they are both designed to bring matters to a close within 

a reasonable period of time. 

Now Mr. Quigley was wondering whether or not this right would 

be used to force prosecutors to go to trial before they were ready 

or defense attorneys to go before they were fully prepared. It would 

not. The victims’ rights amendment simply extends to victims the 

right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. If a prosecutor 

or defense attorney needs additional time, they certainly would be 

entitled to receive it under the amendment. 

Now, the amendment specifically addresses the concern about 

protecting the legitimate interests of criminal defendants by identifying crime victims’ rights as those, quote, capable of protection 

without denying the constitutional rights of the accused. This language was included in the amendment at the suggestion of Harvard law professor Larry Tribe. And I noticed that in neither Ms. 

McCurdy’s prepared remarks or her testimony this afternoon does 

she even mention this direct language, let alone explain how courts 

could somehow ignore it and deny rights to criminal defendants. It 

is hard to understand how the amendment could be used to deny 

defendants their rights when the explicit text provides exactly the 

opposite. 

While the amendment would not in any way interfere with the 

legitimate interests of criminal defendants, it would protect vital 

interests of crime victims. It would protect victims from being excluded from court proceedings, proceedings that they desperately 

want to attend to learn all they can about crimes that have been 

committed against them. It would guarantee victims the right to be 

heard at bail, plea, and sentencing hearings not to veto the decisions that judges would make in those hearings, but simply to have 

a voice in the process. And it would mandate that victims receive 

reasonable notice of the release or escape of accused persons or defendants, which can sometimes be literally a matter of life or death 

for victims who need to take appropriate steps to protect themselves against criminals on the street. 

79 

These rights are not controversial. They command broad bipartisan support, which is why President Clinton first proposed a victims’ rights amendment and later saw it endorsed by President 

George Bush. Public opinion polls consistently show overwhelming 

majorities of Americans want constitutional protection for crime 

victims’ rights. 

Now, I understand that in Washington today, delay has occurred 

on some issues because of partisan disagreement on how to proceed, but I hope there will be no delay in moving forward with the 

victims’ rights amendment. The Framers of the Constitution undoubtedly believed that victims of crime would receive adequate respect in our criminal justice system. Because experience has not 

vindicated that expectation, it is now necessary to add a corrective 

amendment to our Constitution, the victims’ rights amendment. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you Professor Cassell. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cassell follows:] 

80 


PGC-1.eps
81 


PGC-2.eps
82 


PGC-3.eps
83 


PGC-4.eps
84 


PGC-5.eps
85 


PGC-6.eps
86 


PGC-7.eps
87 


PGC-8.eps
88 


PGC-9.eps
89 


PGC-10.eps
90 


PGC-11.eps
91 


PGC-12.eps
92 


PGC-13.eps
93 


PGC-14.eps
94 


PGC-15.eps
95 


PGC-16.eps
96 


PGC-17.eps
97 


PGC-18.eps
98 


PGC-19.eps
99 


PGC-20.eps
100 


PGC-21.eps
101 


PGC-22.eps
102 


PGC-23.eps
103 


PGC-24.eps
104 


PGC-25.eps
105 


PGC-26.eps
106 


PGC-27.eps
107 


PGC-28.eps
108 


PGC-29.eps
109 


PGC-30.eps
110 


PGC-31.eps
111 


PGC-32.eps
112 


PGC-33.eps
113 


PGC-34.eps
114 


PGC-35.eps
115 


PGC-36.eps
116 


PGC-37.eps
117 


PGC-38.eps
118 


PGC-39.eps
119 


PGC-40.eps
120 


PGC-41.eps
121 


PGC-42.eps
122 


PGC-43.eps
123 


PGC-44.eps
124 


PGC-45.eps
125 


PGC-46.eps
126 


PGC-47.eps
127 


PGC-48.eps
128 

EXHIBIT A 


PGCA-50.eps
129 


PGCA-51.eps
130 


PGCA-52.eps
131 


PGCA-53.eps
132 


PGCA-54.eps
133 


PGCA-55.eps
134 


PGCA-56.eps
135 


PGCA-57.eps
136 


PGCA-58.eps
137 


PGCA-59.eps
138 


PGCA-60.eps
139 


PGCA-61.eps
140 


PGCA-62.eps
141 


PGCA-63.eps
142 


PGCA-64.eps
143 


PGCA-65.eps
144 


PGCA-66.eps
145 


PGCA-67.eps
146 


PGCA-68.eps
147 


PGCA-69.eps
148 


PGCA-70.eps
149 


PGCA-71.eps
150 


PGCA-72.eps
151 


PGCA-73.eps
152 


PGCA-74.eps
153 


PGCA-75.eps
154 


PGCA-76.eps
155 


PGCA-77.eps
156 


PGCA-78.eps
157 


PGCA-79.eps
158 


PGCA-80.eps
159 


PGCA-81.eps
160 


PGCA-82.eps
161 


PGCA-83.eps
162 


PGCA-84.eps
163 


PGCA-85.eps
164 


PGCA-86.eps
165 


PGCA-87.eps
166 


PGCA-88.eps
167 


PGCA-89.eps
168 


PGCA-90.eps
169 


PGCA-91.eps
170 


PGCA-92.eps
171 


PGCA-93.eps
172 


PGCA-94.eps
173 


PGCA-95.eps
174 


PGCA-96.eps
175 


PGCA-97.eps
176 


PGCA-98.eps
177 


PGCA-99.eps
178 


PGCA-100.eps
179 


PGCA-101.eps
180 


PGCA-102.eps
181 


PGCA-103.eps
182 


PGCA-104.eps
183 


PGCA-105.eps
184 


PGCA-106.eps
185 


PGCA-107.eps
186 


PGCA-108.eps
187 


PGCA-109.eps
188 


PGCA-110.eps
189 


PGCA-111.eps
190 


PGCA-112.eps
191 


PGCA-113.eps
192 


PGCA-114.eps
193 


PGCA-115.eps
194 

Mr. FRANKS. And I will now begin the questioning time by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. I again appreciate all of you for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Douglass, I will begin with you. I have had the opportunity 

to hear many different witnesses express very moving testimony, 

but I will say to you, sir, that your testimony here today was one 

of the most moving and compelling that I have heard as the Chairman of this Committee. And I will suggest to you that your parents 

would be and are quite proud of you for your performance and 

presence here today. 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I would ask you, if you would, to describe reallife examples that you have discovered in your own life or experience where existing crime victims statutes or State constitutional 

amendments have failed to provide the protections that they promised to crime victims. 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will give 

one example. 

After we passed the initial victims’ rights act in Oklahoma—and 

that included, actually amended in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court 

handed down a decision saying that victim impact statements were 

constitutional. About a year later, after our statute had passed, I 

got a call from someone that I knew in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His mother had been murdered, and they had held the trial, and the person—someone had just been convicted of committing that murder. 

He called me and said that they were all getting ready to give 

their victim impact statements, and the judge literally said, I am 

not going to hear it. So the prosecutor went in and argued the Supreme Court decision and our statutes and said, you have to hear 

this testimony. And he just said, I am not going to do it. So they 

had called me and asked me to call the judge and discuss it with 

him, which I did. And the judge basically said, I don’t think it is 

constitutional, and I am not going to hear it. I don’t like being told 

what to do in my courtroom. 

And the upshot was, what are you going to do about it? And to 

make a long story short, I wound up bringing in the Court of 

Criminal Appeals chief judge. We had a conversation with him, and 

I said the same thing to both of them. I said, well, I understand 

you have a job to do. You don’t want to be told what to do in your 

courtroom. And I have a job to do as a State senator, and now I 

am going to do mine. I said, I am going to go down and I am going 

to get staff. I am going to author a bill that creates a review committee, and what their job will be is to review decisions dealing 

with crime victims’ rights, and if they find that you have wrongfully denied a victim of one of their rights under the statutes or the 

Constitution of Oklahoma, they are going to ultimately have the 

power to take away your pension. 

Well, you know, pretty quickly he decided then that—I don’t 

know if it would be constitutional for me to do that or not, frankly, 

but I didn’t have to file the bill. He wound up actually deciding it 

was a good idea to hear the victim impact testimony. 

But there have been countless—even after I left the senate, just 

as I think I said in my testimony a few months ago, a judge, a sitting judge who I went to law school with, and maybe it wasn’t a 

195 

very good law school, but at the end of the day, he just said, I don’t 

think it is constitutional. He doesn’t bother looking up Supreme 

Court decisions. As you mentioned in your initial statement, just 

the mention of the constitutional rights of the accused is enough 

for them. Whether it has any basis or not, the victims’ rights are 

ignored. 

As I have said many, many times from the senate floor in Oklahoma, we have a system that literally steps over the body of the 

victim to read the criminal his rights, or the suspect his rights, and 

as long as there is not equal footing, as long—the victims will continue to be second-class citizens in our system. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Douglass, very much. And I 

again appreciate your presence here today, sir. 

Professor Cassell, it seems I have been mispronouncing your 

name, and I apologize. But how widespread, in your opinion, is the 

problem described by Mr. Douglass; that is, this failure of State 

victims’ rights laws to protect crime victims? And I suppose I 

should add, what reason is there for thinking that if a Federal constitutional amendment were enacted, that the protection of crime 

victims’ rights would improve? 

Mr. CASSELL. Let me address both of those questions. There was 

a comprehensive Justice Department review done by Attorney General Janet Reno, and she found that the State enactments failed to 

fully safeguard victims’ rights because they were not sufficiently 

consistent, comprehensive, or authoritative. She relied in part on 

a National Institute of Justice study that looked at, I think, eight 

different States to see how the State amendments were being implemented, and they found significant problems. For example, 

fewer than 60 percent of crime victims were notified of sentencing 

hearings, and fewer than 40 percent of victims were notified of pretrial release. 

Now, those error rates are simply astounding. I mean, I wonder 

what the Committee would do if it found out, for example, that 

even 5 percent of criminal defendants were not getting their right 

to be represented by counsel or something along those lines. I am 

assuming there would be hearings and immediate steps taken to 

rectify the situation. But that is the level of the problem that is out 

there. 

Now, we have heard some discussion, too, about the Federal system and the new Crime Victims’ Rights Act. I wanted to say just 

a couple of words about that. Let us remember that the Federal 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act applies to fewer than 5 percent of the 

criminal prosecutions in this country. Most of the prosecutions are 

done at the State and local level, and certainly most of the violent 

crimes or extremely violent crimes, such as the one Mr. Douglass 

is talking about, are handled by State and local prosecutors. So the 

Federal system, I think, is a little bit unusual. But even here the 

General Accounting Office found significant situations, such as the 

fact that less than half of Federal victims were even aware that 

they had a right to confer with Federal prosecutors. 

So that is the level of the problem that we have out there. A constitutional amendment would immediately change the culture. The 

kinds of examples we have been hearing about today simply 

wouldn’t happen. You don’t see judges ignoring a defendant’s right 

196 

to counsel, because they are taught that in law school, they know 

it is in the Constitution, and they respect it. The same kind of 

change would happen if we passed a victims’ rights amendment. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Professor. And related to your testimony about the Janet Reno study, did I hear it—was it Janet 

Reno? 

Mr. CASSELL. Yes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. From my memory on that part, that she has 

been accused of being part of a right-wing conspiracy here. 

But with that I would yield to Mr. Quigley for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Douglass, I apologize for being out of the room when you testified. One of the few absolute responsibilities we have here is voting, and I was next door doing that. But I read your testimony. It 

is quite compelling and very important for us to appreciate. 

To all of our panelists, having been in the trenches of the justice 

system as a criminal attorney at 26 in California and Chicago for 

10 years, probably 220 trials, I can tell you it isn’t easy. We all 

speak of a balance, but the balance is played out every day. 

And, Professor, when I talk about my reservations, it comes from 

that experience, because after I left that work, I was a Cook County commissioner on the litigation committee. Our first act was to 

deal with a lawsuit of four men, the Ford Heights Four, who went 

to jail or on death row. One was lined up on death row. One was 

raped in prison. And it was the wrong guys, right? In Illinois—we 

talk about the balance, the horrific unfortunately goes to both 

sides. 

Before they got rid of the death penalty, they exonerated more 

people on death row through DNA and so forth than they executed. 

So if no one cares about that aspect from the issue of justice, the 

county had to settle the Ford Heights case for $36 million. 

So that no one thinks this is just about the alleged perpetrators’ 

rights being taken away, being put on death row, we want to get 

this right because the victims want the right people punished. So 

my concern, Professor, is we got to get this right. And when it 

comes to speedy trials, you say—you quoted someone from Harvard 

saying they can’t collide. Well, they do. And I am telling you, it is 

not easy to sort out, you know? We put people on the bench. Some 

are good, and some are bad. 

But you have to appreciate from a veteran’s point of view, I have 

seen haste make horrible mistakes. I mean, how do you balance 

that out with the language that you are trying to address here beyond just that word ‘‘unreasonable,’’ which courts struggle with? 

Mr. CASSELL. Well, I was a Federal prosecutor for 4 years, and 

I was a Federal district court judge for 5 years, so I have been in 

the trenches as well and have seen a number of the cases that are 

out there. 

I think I agree with Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe. He 

was the law professor that I was quoting. And the idea here is not 

to take away rights from criminal defendants, but to expand rights 

for crime victims. 

So let us talk about the one you have been pointing to, and the 

language, I think, is very carefully drafted. It says that crime vicVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:16 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\042612\73966.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
197 

tims would have the right to proceedings free from unreasonable 

delay. And by definition, and the situation in which the prosecutor 

needs to prepare a case or the defendant needs to collect evidence, 

that would be reasonable delay. But we have all seen situations— 

I am sure you have—where delay is happening for delay’s sake or 

for no good reason at all. The amendment would give a victim a 

right to go in and say, wait a minute, Judge, we need to get this 

case moving along. 

The other thing I should point out is that there are a number 

of States—and my prepared testimony actually lists them—that already have in their State constitutions a constitutional right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. So the fact that these 

States have been able to provide these rights without the kinds of 

problems that I think some have been suggesting bodes very well 

for the Federal constitutional amendment. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And I appreciate what you are saying. I still think, 

though, beyond the simple words of what you are trying to do, 

every case is unique, and every case is bound upon that. And I 

think to a certain degree you are creating unrealistic expectations 

that with the stroke of a pen and the passage of a constitutional 

amendment, judges are going to have a much easier time sorting 

out that troubling aspect of this right now, and that is lost witnesses, complicated data, experts’ cost, pending litigation. You 

know, perhaps much better than I, a dozen other reasons that this 

could be held off and could be extraordinarily complicated, and we 

get it wrong both ways. You know, it is something we struggle 

with. 

I just have fears that it is hard to do the most important thing 

we do, and that is seek justice, with the language that has to be 

so broad as a constitutional amendment, and you want to be balanced. But I just think it is harder than that, what you have tried 

to explain here in just these few minutes, and there is just so much 

at stake in our attempts to do so, because, again, it does the victims no good to have a hearing—to have a trial take place, and we 

get the wrong people. 

But I will yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

We will now recognize Mr. Scott for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we all want dignity, respect, and protection for our witnesses, and the question is whether the constitutional amendment 

would create more problems than it solves. Professor Cassell mentioned the State measures. They are all subservient to the Federal 

Constitution. 

You also mentioned the right to counsel and how that is not ignored. Well, a right to counsel, if you violate that, that is reversible 

error. That is why the judge has to pay attention to that. There is 

nothing in here that creates any remedy that is apparent. I guess 

mandamus. 

If you really want to provide respect, dignity, consultation, protection, what we ought to do is have more victim advocates, more 

prosecutors so they have actual time. A lot of State prosecutors 

come in with a stack of files. They don’t have time to talk to anybody, so of course they are going to be rude. If you had more prosVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:16 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\042612\73966.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
198 

ecutors and more marshals to provide protection. Unfortunately the 

budget that we are trying to work under this year eliminates a lot 

of the funding for the victims’ advocates, cuts the Department of 

Justice budget significantly, and has about a 10 percent cut for the 

marshal services. So who is going to be doing the protection? 

Let me ask a couple of questions, because some of this is all in 

theory, and I just want to know what this kind of looks like. 

If a victim has, in fact, been disrespected and goes in the court 

and presents a case—it says any court, so I assume if it is a State 

court proceeding, they can go into Federal court to make the case 

that they are being disrespected in State court. What does a judge 

do? Does a prosecutor get subpoenaed to testify, no, I didn’t disrespect them? 

Mr. CASSELL. The way the enforcement would work is if there 

was a problem in State court, the victim would go into State court 

to address that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, it says in here any court, enforce those rights 

in any court, has a standing to enforce these rights in any court. 

Mr. CASSELL. So you would have standing to enforce them in 

both State and Federal court. 

Mr. SCOTT. So you would go to Federal court and present to a 

judge that you are being disrespected in State court? 

Mr. CASSELL. You would go initially, though, to the State court, 

because the State court is the—you have to exhaust remedies before you can proceed to some other forum to vindicate your rights. 

And the way that this would work—again, there are real-world examples of a right to be treated with respect, and my prepared testimony collects specific examples. 

For example, in a child pornography prosecution, if somebody is 

showing the pornography around in ways that are not respectful to 

the victim, the victim can go to that judge and say, wait a minute, 

these materials should be kept under seal, only disclosed to people 

that have a need to see that information. That is the kind of enforcement that becomes possible if a Federal constitutional amendment—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well—— 

Mr. CASSELL [continuing]. Around the country. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let us get back to disrespect. If you are in court and 

approved your case, can you subpoena the prosecutor? 

Mr. CASSELL. You wouldn’t need to subpoena the prosecutor. The 

prosecutor would be right there during the proceedings, and so you 

would assert—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, if you are in any court, you can go into any 

court and—so let us say the judge is the problem, and you want 

to go into another court to show that you are being disrespected. 

And you present it to the court: Won’t return phone calls, didn’t notify me of this and that. Is that an ex parte proceeding? Can you 

go ex parte in Federal court? 

Mr. CASSELL. No, you don’t go ex parte. Again, there are realworld examples of how these rights are handled, and you don’t go 

to a different court, you don’t subpoena the judge. Just as you 

pointed out, if a defense attorney is not appointed for a defendant, 

you don’t go and subpoena—— 

Mr. SCOTT. No. That is reversible error. You don’t have to worry. 

199 

If you have shown that you are being disrespected, what is the 

remedy? 

Mr. CASSELL. Well, the remedy is to correct the disrespect. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if they don’t do it, what is the remedy? 

Mr. CASSELL. The remedy then is to go to the appellate court and 

say the lower court is not following the directive in the United 

States Constitution. Again, there are real-world examples. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that an ex parte proceeding? 

Mr. CASSELL. No. It is a judicial proceeding that is handled with 

notice to both sides with service of process on both sides. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you don’t have enough prosecutors to begin with. 

So they are sitting up in all these other courts. 

Unreasonable delay. How will a judge determine whether or not 

the delay is reasonable or not? 

Mr. CASSELL. Right. There would be typically a four-factor balancing test. In my prepared remarks, I indicate the four factors 

that the judges have used. And remember, defense attorneys 

now—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I am running out of time. So if the delay is because 

the prosecutor’s witness has disappeared, and the defense doesn’t 

know about it, or refuses to testify, or the prosecution has lost the 

evidence and is trying to find it, would that be an open trial with 

the defendant there listening to the proceedings as to why they 

haven’t gone forward? 

Mr. CASSELL. The question would be for the judge whether the 

delay was reasonable or not, and a record would be made on that. 

In certain situations records can be made in sealed proceedings. So 

that is how that issue would be handled. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, so the defendant would have the opportunity to hear that the prosecutor’s case has all fallen apart, and 

that is why they are asking for a continuance? 

Mr. CASSELL. That is the way it happens today in many cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. No, they just—the defendant knows he did it, so he 

doesn’t want—if the prosecutor wants a continuance, fine with me. 

Now you have got an idea that the witness isn’t going to show 

up, and the victim says it is unreasonable delay. And the judge 

says, this is unreasonable; Mr. Prosecutor, why aren’t you going 

forward? Then what does the prosecutor say? 

Mr. CASSELL. All I can say, Congressman, is that that has not 

been a problem, for example, in my home State of Utah, where 

there is such a right. And that is probably why the National District Attorneys Association just this week endorsed the amendment 

saying it would actually strengthen the prosecution. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one additional question? 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection, please. 

Mr. SCOTT. The language in section 1 starts off with the rights 

of the crime victim, fairness, respect, and dignity, being capable of 

protection without denying the constitutional rights of the accused. 

Do you interpret that as being a priority for rights of the accused 

or a statement, in fact, that you can provide fairness, respect, and 

dignity without denying the constitutional rights? Is that a question of fact, a statement of fact, or a statement of priority? 

Mr. CASSELL. What it is is a statement of coexistence, that both 

victims’ rights and defendants’ rights can coexist without comproVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:16 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\042612\73966.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
200 

mising each other. The language, I should point out, was drafted 

by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, again who is frequently 

cited as one of the leading advocates for civil liberties in this country. So we think the language would actually work very well to 

make sure that both defense interests and crime victims’ interests 

are—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, my question is if there is—if somebody believes 

there is a conflict, would the right of the accused trump the rights 

of the victim? Or is this a statement of—trying to be a statement 

of fact that there is, in fact, no conflict, and that the crime victims’ 

rights will be respected notwithstanding any denying of constitutional rights to the accused? 

Mr. CASSELL. It does not provide a basis for denying defendants’ 

rights. It does not provide a basis for denying victims’ rights. It 

says that both rights can coexist. And again, nobody has provided 

a real-world example of how the rights are going to interfere with 

the defendants’ interests. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Scott, I am going to have to ask you to leave 

it there, sir. I have got a vote in the Committee next door that I 

have got to—and that means I am going to have to be pretty direct 

here. 

But we have had a good hearing, and I want to thank all of the 

witnesses for coming. And, without objection, all Members will 

have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written 

questions for the witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond to as promptly as they can so that their answers 

may be made a part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit any additional materials for inclusion into the 

record. 

With that, again, I sincerely thank the witnesses. I thank the 

Members and observers. And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(201) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

202 

Supplement to the Testimony of Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 

University of Utah 


73966C-1.eps
203 


73966C-2.eps
204 


73966C-3.eps
205 


73966C-4.eps
206 

f 


73966C-5.eps
207 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution 


73966D-1.eps
208 


73966D-2.eps
209 


73966D-3.eps
210 


73966D-4.eps
211 


73966D-5.eps
212 


73966D-6.eps
213 


73966D-7.eps
214 


73966D-8.eps
215 


73966D-9.eps
216 


73966D-10.eps
217 


73966D-11.eps
218 


73966D-12.eps
219 


73966D-13.eps
220 


73966D-14.eps
221 


73966D-15.eps
222 


73966D-16.eps
223 


73966D-17.eps
224 


73966D-18.eps
225 


73966D-19.eps
226 


73966D-20.eps
227 


73966D-21.eps
228 


73966D-22.eps
229 


73966D-23.eps
230 


73966D-24.eps
231 


73966D-25.eps
232 


73966D-26.eps
233 


73966D-27.eps
234 


73966D-28.eps
235 


73966D-29.eps
236 


73966D-30.eps
237 


73966D-31.eps
238 


73966D-32.eps
239 


73966D-33.eps
240 


73966D-34.eps
241 


73966D-35.eps
242 


73966D-36.eps
243 


73966D-37.eps
244 


73966D-38.eps
245 


73966D-39.eps
246 


73966D-40.eps
247 


73966D-41.eps
248 


73966D-42.eps
249 


73966E-1.eps
250 


73966E-2.eps
251 


73966E-3.eps
252 


73966E-4.eps
253 


73966E-5.eps
254 


73966E-6.eps
255 


73966E-7.eps
256 


73966E-8.eps
257 


73966E-9.eps
258 


73966E-10.eps
259 


73966E-11.eps
260 


73966E-12.eps
261 


73966E-13.eps
262 


73966E-14.eps
263 


73966E-15.eps
264 


73966E-16.eps
265 


73966E-17.eps
266 


73966E-18.eps
267 


73966E-19.eps
268 


73966E-20.eps
269 


73966E-21.eps
270 


73966E-22.eps
271 


73966E-23.eps
272 


73966E-24.eps
273 


73966E-25.eps
274 


73966E-26.eps
275 


73966E-27.eps
276 


73966E-28.eps
277 


73966E-29.eps
278 


73966E-30.eps
279 


73966E-31.eps
280 


73966E-32.eps
281 


73966E-33.eps
282 


73966E-34.eps
283 


73966E-35.eps
284 


73966E-36.eps
285 


73966E-37.eps
286 


73966E-38.eps
287 


73966E-39.eps
288 


73966E-40.eps
289 


73966E-41.eps
290 


73966E-42.eps
291 


73966E-43.eps
292 


73966E-44.eps
293 


73966E-45.eps
294 


73966E-46.eps
295 


73966E-47.eps
296 


73966F-1.eps
297 


73966F-2.eps
298 


73966F-3.eps
299 


73966F-4.eps
300 


73966F-5.eps
301 


73966G-1.eps
302 


73966G-2.eps
303 


73966H-1.eps
304 


73966H-2.eps
305 


73966H-3.eps
306 


73966I-1.eps
307 


73966I-2.eps
308 


73966J.eps
309 


73966K-1.eps
310 


73966K-2.eps
311 


73966K-3.eps
312 


73966L.eps
313 


73966M-1.eps
314 


73966M-2.eps
315 


73966M-3.eps
316 


73966M-4.eps
317 


73966M-5.eps
318 


73966M-6.eps
319 


73966M-7.eps
320 


73966M-8.eps
321 


73966M-9.eps
322 


73966M-10.eps
323 


73966M-11.eps
324 


73966M-12.eps
325 


73966M-13.eps
326 


73966M-14.eps
327 


73966N-1.eps
328 


73966N-2.eps
329 


73966N-3.eps
330 


73966N-4.eps
331 


73966N-5.eps
332 


73966N-6.eps
333 


73966N-7.eps
334 


73966N-8.eps
335 


73966N-9.eps
336 


73966N-10.eps
337 


73966N-11.eps
338 


73966N-12.eps
339 


73966O-1.eps
340 


73966O-2.eps
341 


73966O-3.eps
342 


73966P-1.eps
343 


73966P-2.eps
344 


73966P-3.eps
345 


73966P-4.eps
346 


73966Q-1.eps
347 


73966Q-2.eps
348 


73966Q-3.eps
349 


73966Q-4.eps
350 


73966R-1.eps
351 


73966R-2.eps
352 


73966R-3.eps
353 


73966R-4.eps
354 


73966R-5.eps
355 


73966S.eps
356 


73966T.eps
357 

Æ 


73966U.eps