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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–328 DTP 2003

S. HRG. 108–189

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO

PROTECT CRIME VICTIMS, S.J. RES. 1

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 8, 2003

Serial No. J–108–8

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 9

Feingold, Hon. Russel D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .............. 10

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 3

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 116

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 124

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 1

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 5

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126

WITNESSES 

Campbell, Collene, Councilwoman, San Juan, Capistrano, California ............... 21

Dinh, Viet D., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department 

of Justice ............................................................................................................... 11

Eason, Earlene, Gary, Indiana ............................................................................... 23

Lynn, Duane, Peoria, Arizona ................................................................................ 29

Orenstein, James, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 27

Perry, Patricia, Seaford, New York ........................................................................ 24

Royce, Hon. Ed, a Representatives in Congress from the State of California .... 20

Twist, Steven J., General Counsel, National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network ....................................................................................................... 31

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Viet Dinh to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ..................... 45

Responses of Viet Dinh to questions submitted by Senator Durbin .................... 51

Responses of Viet Dinh to questions submitted by Senator Feinstein ................ 58

Responses of Jame Orenstein to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ........... 60

Responses of Steve Twist to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .................. 81

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Albright, Keith & Wendy, Dallas, Texas, letter .................................................... 84

American Civil Libertires Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director, and Terri 

Schroeder, Legislative Representative, Washington, D.C, letter ..................... 86

California District Attorneys Association, Lawrence G. Brown, Executive Director, Sacramento, California, letter ................................................................. 89

Campbell, Collene Thompson, Commissioner, State of California, San Juan 

Capistrano, California, letter .............................................................................. 91

Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, Nancy Lewis, Executive Director, Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................... 95

Crime Victims United of Oregon, Steve Doell, President, Hillsboro, Oregon, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 96

Dinh, Viet D., Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement ........................................................................................ 97

Eason, Earlene, Gary, Indiana, statement ............................................................ 104

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Richard J. Gallo, Lewisberrry, 

Pennsylvania, letter ............................................................................................. 108

Page

IV

Ferres, Donna J., Fort Myers, Florida, letter ........................................................ 113

Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 115

Henderson, Lynne, Professor of Law, Boyd School of Law, Las Vegas, Vevada, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 117

Hull, Jane Dee, Governor of Arizona, Chairman, Western Governors Association, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................. 120

International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, Dennis J. Slocumb, Executive Vice President, Alexandria, Virginia, letter .......................................... 123

Los Angels County Police Chiefs Association, Chief Larry Lewis, President, 

Los Angeles, California, letter ............................................................................ 130

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Wendy J. Hamilton, National President, 

Irving, Texas, letter ............................................................................................. 131

Marquis, Joshua, District Attorney, Clatsop County, Astoria, Oregon, letter .... 132

Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center, Inc., Russell P. Butler, Executive 

Director, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, letter ...................................................... 133

Maryland Crime Victim Resource Center, and National Victims’ Constitutional Amendment Network, Roberta Roper, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 134

Moreau, Michael & Penny, New Orleans, Louisiana, letter ................................ 136

Murphy, William L., District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney 

Richmand County, Staten Island, New York, letter ......................................... 137

National Association of Attorneys General, Mark Shurtleff, Attorney Generao 

fo Utah, Christine Gregorire, Attorney General of Washington, Peg 

Lautenschlager, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Jerry Kilgore, Attorney 

General of Virginina, and Darrell V. McGraw Jr., Attorney General of 

West Virginia, letter ............................................................................................ 141

National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., William J. Johnson, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................... 145

National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, statement ..................................................................................... 146

National Organization for Victim Assistance, Jeannette M. Adkins, President 

of the Board, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................... 152

Orenstein, James, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District 

of New York, statement ....................................................................................... 153

Parents of Murdered Children, Inc., Central Arkansas Chapter, Dee 

McManus Engle, Arkansas State Coordinator, National Board of Trustees, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 170

Parents of Murdered Children, Inc.: 

Carolee Brooks, Flushing, New York, letter ................................................... 171

Pat Gioia, Schenectady, New York, letter ...................................................... 172

Matthew Knapp, Freeville, New York, letter ................................................. 173

Patricia Solomon-Lawrence, Bronx, New York, letter ................................... 174

Debra Moseley, Watertown, New York, letter ............................................... 175

Louise Spiers, Brooklyn, New York, letter ..................................................... 176

Parents of Murdered, Children, Inc., Nancy Ruhe-Munch, Executive Director, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, letter ........................................................................................ 177

Parents of Murdered, Children, Inc., Odile Stern, Executive Director, New 

York, letter ............................................................................................................ 178

Perry, Patricia, Seaford, New York, statement ..................................................... 179

Racial Minorities for Victim Justice, c/o National Organization for Victim 

Assistance, Norman S. Early, Jr., Convenor, Washington, D.C., letter .......... 185

Rosenthal, Lynn Executive Director, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Washington, D.C., statement .................................................................... 187

Russell, Susan S., M.A., Warren, Vermont: 

letter .................................................................................................................. 204

statement .......................................................................................................... 206

Southern States Police Denevolent Association, Inc., H.G. Bill Thompson, 

Director, Governmental Affairs, McDonough, Georgia, letter .......................... 211

Stout, Ed., Executive Director, Aid for Victims of Crime, Inc., St. Louis, 

Missouri, letter ..................................................................................................... 212

Survivors Advocting for an Effective System, Arwen Bird, Director, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 214

Page

V

Survivors Advocting for an Effective System, Arwen Bird, Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Independence Institute, David Kopel, Boyd School of Law, Professor Lynn Henderson, Washington National Office, American Civil Liberties Union, Laura 

Murphy, Director, Chadwick Professor of Law, Duke Law School, Robert 

Mosteller, Professor, University of Southern California School of Law, 

Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor, National Clearinghouse for the Defense of 

Battered Women, Sue Osthoff, Director, National Association of Criminal 

Defense Lawyers, Lawrence S. Goldman, President, and Defender Legal 

Services, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Scott Wallace, Director, letter .......................................................................................................... 215

Tribe, Laurence H., Professor of Constituional Law, Harvard University Law 

School, Cambridge, Massachusetts ..................................................................... 221

Totten, Gregory D., District Attorney, County of Ventura, State of California, 

Ventura, California, letter ................................................................................... 223

Twist, Steven J., General Counsel, National Victims Constitutional Amendment Project, statement ...................................................................................... 224

Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, Judy Rex, Executive Director, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 285

Welch, Bud, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, statement ............................................. 286

(1)

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 

TO PROTECT CRIME VICTIMS, S.J. RES. 1

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl presiding. 

Present: Senators Kyl, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, and 

Durbin. 

Also Present: Representative Royce. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

will come to order. 

In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, Senator 

Hatch, I will begin. Should Senator Hatch arrive, and Senator 

Leahy, of course, an opportunity will be afforded to them to make 

whatever statements they wish to make. In fact, we will keep the 

record open for the submission of any statements by any Senator. 

We are also joined this morning by Congressman Ed Royce of 

California, and he will have a couple of introductions to make after 

awhile. 

The purpose of this hearing, of course, is to consider a proposed 

constitutional amendment to give victims of crime certain rights 

that would, to some extent, parallel many more extensive rights 

that are provided to defendants in criminal proceedings. 

The Constitution provides defendants a variety of rights, but 

none for victims of crime, and in certain situations where State 

constitutions and State statutes have attempted to provide rights 

to victims of crime, we have found that those rights have not been 

uniformly effected by the courts and that victims, therefore, continue to suffer, notwithstanding those laudable provisions. 

In fact, according to a report of the National Institute of Justice, 

even those States that give the strongest protection by their own 

statutes or constitutional provisions, fewer than 60 percent of the 

victims were notified of the sentencing hearing, and fewer than 40 

percent were notified of the pretrial release of the defendant. So 

even where the rights are supposedly guaranteed in statute, they 

simply aren’t being enforced. It is our view—and Senator Feinstein 

and I have co-sponsored this amendment now for several years—

that until these rights are actually embodied in the U.S. Constitution, they will continue to take second place. That’s not right. 

2

This idea is not new. It’s over 20 years old. President Reagan, 

in his 1982 task force, proposed enactment of a Federal Constitution amendment to supplement the State laws and State constitutional provisions. 

Now, regarding the current text that is before us, it is similar to 

the one in the 106th Congress, but in response to comments about 

its length and its cosmetics, the language has been honed and refined. We have several people to thank for that, which we will do 

momentarily. 

But regarding this point, President Bush, when he announced 

his support of this precise amendment, said that it was written 

with care and strikes a proper balance. We believe that that is 

true. 

Professor Laurence Tribe, who has been instrumental in helping 

us with this drafting and came up with a lot of the ideas for this 

form of text, praised the amendment’s greater brevity and clarity—

for which he was largely responsible, I might add—and he commented that, ‘‘You have achieved such conciseness while fully protecting defendants’ rights, and accommodating the legitimate concerns that have been voiced about prosecutorial power and presidential authority is no mean feat. I think you’ve done a splendid 

job at distilling the prior versions of the Victims Rights Amendment into a form that would be worthy of a constitutional amendment.’’ Again, we appreciate all that he has contributed to this effort. 

I will just conclude with a brief comment about the degree of 

support that this amendment has. It has been supported by both 

the Republican and Democratic party platforms. It is a truly nonpartisan or bipartisan kind of issue, as evidenced again by the fact 

that throughout the years, regardless of which party was in power 

in the Senate, Senator Feinstein and I have worked together as the 

sponsors of this amendment to attempt to get it passed. 

Major national victims rights groups, including Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving, Parents of Murdered Children, the National Organization for Crime Assistance, and State groups like the Arizona 

Voice for Crime Victims, the Maryland Crime Victims Resource 

Center, Memory of Victims Everywhere, and Crime Victims United, 

a variety of organizations support this. Senator Feinstein is going 

to have a very important letter to put into the record in a moment. 

It is supported by various law enforcement groups, like the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Union 

of Police Associations, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 

Association. Forty-one State Attorneys General have just signed a 

letter in strong support, which we’ll get to in a moment. 

Thirty-two State amendments, as I’ve said, have passed by an 

average vote—and average vote—of 82 percent of the electorate of 

those States. So this is very popular among the people of the 

United States, and we believe if we can get the amendment 

through the Congress and to the State legislatures, it will be supported by the requisite number of State legislatures. 

We have, I think, at last count, 21 cosponsors in the Senate, and 

we are informed that a similar amendment will be introduced in 

the House next week, and we are looking forward to moving the 

3

legislation through the Judiciary Committee and on to the floor of 

the Senate as soon as we possibly can. 

Again, our whole point here is that it is important to embody 

rights for victims of crime in the United States Constitution, if they 

are ever to have the degree of importance attached to them that 

matches our commitment to provide these rights to victims of 

crime, in a way that will truly see them, recognized and administered by our courts in a way that is fair to the victims of crime. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today. I will 

introduce each of you in a moment. I thank Congressman Royce for 

being here and, of course, our colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Feinstein. 

At this point let me turn to Senator Feinstein for any opening 

comments she might like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A. U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s hard to believe that we have been at this now for 6 years, 

but Steve Twist just came up and he said, yes, it was 6 years. 

I want to particularly acknowledge the work you have done, Mr. 

Chairman. I have been very pleased to be able to join you in this 

effort. I have come to believe in it profoundly over the years. I particularly want to thank Steve Twist, who has represented victims 

and has been with us all the way through it. 

I hope that Senator Durbin might appreciate the following story. 

After our last floor debate about the amendment, I was talking to 

Larry Tribe by phone, and I recounted to him many of the comments that Senator Durbin made on the floor about the amendment, that it was too statutory, that it was too long, et cetera, et 

cetera. A couple of months went by and one morning he called, and 

he said, ‘‘You know, I was taking a shower this morning and it just 

came to me.’’ So that’s how, in essence, we started to revise the 

previous version of the amendment. The idea came from a constitutional professor of law who happened to be taking a shower, and 

had worked with us for a number of years. I happen to think it’s 

a great improvement. 

I would like to spend my time just saying why I believe we need 

this amendment. Before I do, I would like to put into the record 

a letter signed by 42 State Attorneys General which, says—and I 

quote—‘‘The rights you propose in S.J. Res 1 are moderate, fair, 

and yet profound. They will extend to crime victims a meaningful 

opportunity to participate in the critical stages of their case, and 

at the same time they will not infringe on the fundamental rights 

of those accused or convicted of offenses.’’ So if I might add that 

to the record, I would appreciate it. 

First, Mr. Chairman, a victims’ rights constitutional amendment 

will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights, 15 of 

them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is 

not a single word in the Constitution about the victims of crime. 

These rights trump the statutory and State constitutional rights of 

crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of 

the land. 

4

To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the United 

States Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim and 

a defendant’s rights, the court will be able to balance those rights 

and determine which party has the most compelling argument. 

Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims’ rights laws. Seventeen States lack State constitutional victims’ rights amendments. And the 33 existing State victim’s rights 

amendments differ from one another. So they create a kind of 

patchwork of rights, all of them different. Also, virtually every 

State has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. So only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims’ rights. 

Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact 

that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard 

practice for victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal 

cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they 

enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and to be heard. 

Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention 

victims. 

Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a 

criminal prosecution. Thus victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. That stopped in the mid–19th century, around 1850. When the position of public prosecutor became 

institutionalized, victims lost their rights. Victims should receive 

some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at 

the time that the Constitution was drafted. 

Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere 

State law is insufficient. State victims’ rights laws, lacking the 

force of Federal constitutional law, are often given short shrift. A 

Justice Department sponsored study and other studies have found 

that even in States with strong legal protections for victims’ rights, 

many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found 

that statues are insufficient to guarantee victims’ rights. Only a 

Federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims 

receive the rights they are due. 

Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal 

statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to 

the victims’ rights amendment would only directly cover certain 

violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight 

more than 98 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the Constitution. 

The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we 

need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the 

strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face 

of a defendant’s constitutional right. In that case, two Federal victims’ rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that. 

An appellate court held, in fact, that the victims did not have 

standing under the Constitution to bring a case to get the right 

which we in the Senate and House of Representatives, signed by 

5

the President, passed. So a constitutional amendment would help 

ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack, such as the 

Oklahoma City bombing, have standing, and that their arguments 

for a right to be present are not dismissed as ‘‘unripe’’. A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing. 

There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft, have endorsed 

the amendment. I appreciate their support. Both former President 

Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support 

for a constitutional amendment on victims’ rights. Both the Democratic and Republican party platforms call for a victims’ rights constitutional amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have 

called for an amendment. Four U.S. Attorneys General, including 

Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Forty-two State 

Attorneys General support an amendment. And major national victims’ rights groups, including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance support the amendment. 

Law enforcement groups, including the National Association of 

Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Union of Police Associations, AFL–CIO, and 

the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, support an 

amendment. Constitutional scholars such as Harvard Law School 

Professor Larry Tribe support an amendment, and I should say 

that Professor Paul Cassell supported the amendment prior to becoming a Federal judge. 

The amendment has received strong support around the country. 

Thirty-two States have passed similar measures, by an average 

popular vote of almost 80 percent. Mr. Chairman, I look forward 

to hearing the testimony today, and I thank you for your leadership. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein, and 

thank you for your leadership on this amendment. 

This morning is an extraordinarily busy day in the Senate. I 

have two other committees meeting at this precise time, and I 

know it’s busy for all of us. But that is why I’m particularly 

pleased that the Ranking Member of the full Senate Judiciary 

Committee, Senator Leahy, is here. I will turn to him next for an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

courtesy on this. 

I would ask that a number of items for the record, including a 

letter from Chief Justice Rehnquist, a statement from Bud Welch, 

the father of an Oklahoma City bombing victim, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and others, be included in the 

record at the appropriate place. 

Senator KYL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

6

This past Sunday marked the beginning of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. For more than two decades, we have set this 

week aside each year to focus attention on the needs and rights of 

crime victims. Each year, this week reminds us of our longstanding 

commitment to afford dignity and recognition to crime victims, and 

challenges us to build on the tremendous foundation of victims’ 

rights and services already established across our Nation. 

My involvement with victims’s rights began more than three decades ago. I was State’s Attorney in Chittenden County, VT and I 

witnessed first hand how crime can devastate victims’ lives. I believe I was one of the very first, certainly in our State, one of the 

first prosecutors in the country to make absolutely sure that victims were heard at the time of sentencing, that they were given a 

chance to be part of the process all the way through. I have worked 

ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime, rather than one 

that presents further ordeals to those who have already been victimized. 

I am pleased that Congress and the States have become far more 

sensitive to the rights of crime victims than either were at the time 

I was a prosecutor. We have greatly improved our victims’ assistance programs, but we have a lot more to do. 

For example, we have unfinished business with respect to the annual cap on the Crime Victims Fund, which has severely limited 

the amount of money available to serve victims of State crimes. In 

2001, Congress passed, and then inexplicably repealed, legislation 

that Senator Kennedy and I proposed to replace the cap with a 

self-regulating system. Such a system would ensure stability and 

would protect the Fund assets while allowing more money to be 

distributed to victims. We should not be imposing artificial caps on 

spending at a time when unfunded needs are there. 

I was disappointed, for example, that the President’s latest budget for fiscal year 2004 does precisely that. It proposed a cap on 

spending for the Crime Victims Fund. The President’s budget 

would reduce Federal funding for State victim assistance programs 

for the second year in a row. I think that’s wrong, because State 

funding and charitable giving are drying up, and I hope the President will change his mind. 

We also need to protect our most vulnerable victims, women and 

children who are victims of domestic violence. They are extraordinarily vulnerable. Seeing a representative from the Attorney 

General’s office here, I would remind him that the President’s 

budget fails to fund any transitional housing programs, and it severely underfunds grants for battered women’s shelters. These are 

desperately needed nationwide. While it may not go through the 

AG’s office, they may want to pass the word on. 

But one important program on which progress has finally been 

made is the Violence Against Women office. Last year, we underscored the importance of that office’s work by passing legislation 

that required the office to be moved to a more prominent position 

under the Attorney General. But for 6 months after the President 

signed that legislation into law, the Department of Justice refused 

to follow it. I am glad that the Attorney General has now changed 

his mind and he has agreed to set up the Violence Against Women 

7

office with the status that Congress intended. I think you will find 

bipartisan support in this Committee to help the new head of that. 

Then there’s another area of violent crime—terrorism and mass 

violence. We need to focus on victims’ rights in this particular context for several reasons. After September 11th, this most savage 

type of crime is a growing concern. Terrorism and mass violence 

differ from other violent crimes because it can devastate thousands 

of innocent lives and can also devastate whole communities. And 

then we have to make sure that victims’ rights are tailored to ensure they’re in harmony with the needs of national security. 

We passed a bill to allow the families and survivors of the September 11th attacks to watch a closed circuit broadcast of the trial 

of Zacharias Moussaoui. But the judge in that case has severely 

limited the number of locations at which victims can watch those 

proceedings. Many of the victims are going to be denied the right 

that we in Congress, again in a bipartisan fashion, sought to provide. In fact, we have been told the prosecution may be moved to 

Guantanamo Bay, which would mean none of the victims would be 

able to watch it. So these are things we have to watch. If there are 

going to be trials at Guantanamo Bay and military tribunals, then 

we ought to ask are the victims going to be accommodated in this. 

Now, I mention those various proposals—funding for victims of 

State crimes, shelter for victims of domestic violence, strengthening 

enforcement with respect to violence against women, and giving 

victims of terror access to the justice system—because these are all 

practical means tailored to the actual needs of real specific groups 

of victims. You put the money in there and it makes sure that victims’ rights are protected. 

I remember the debates we’ve had over the years about unfunded 

mandates. Well, we shouldn’t make unfunded promises. A constitutional amendment may well make us feel good, but if we’re not 

going to fund the things that are there to help victims, it doesn’t 

really do anything for us. 

This amendment makes victims promises that we lack the ability 

or political will to turn into practical realities. If that’s the case, 

then we should reject it. I mean, we found the presidential budgets, 

Congressional actions, and we make all kinds of promises, but we 

don’t put the money there. If we don’t put the money there, then 

we’re tacking on to the Constitution what Shakespeare called 

‘‘words, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’’ So we ought to 

have candor. 

After all, amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I 

have a great deal of respect for the sponsors of this amendment. 

I know they worked very hard on it. They have been through, I believe, 70 drafts to date. It shows their sincerity. But it also shows 

how difficult this is if you have to go through all those drafts. In 

fact, if we had passed an earlier version, like the one we debated 

3 years ago, we would now be stuck with that version. Everybody 

now concedes there were flaws in it. We would be out here trying 

to pass another constitutional amendment to correct what we did 

back then. 

So we’re not disagreeing about the importance of victims’ rights. 

I have demonstrated that throughout my career. I demonstrated 

that in my career when I was in law enforcement. We have to 

8

make sure victims are heard. But let’s make sure that we do it in 

a way that they really are heard. Let’s make sure we take the laws 

that are on the books today and put the money behind them. Let’s 

make sure we don’t have six-month delays in the future in setting 

up offices needed for victims’ rights. Let’s make sure that when we 

all give speeches in favor of victims’ rights and all the programs 

we have established for them, that we then come up with the 

money to fund them. 

I would hope that people would read the testimony of Bud Welch, 

whose daughter was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. This is 

a man who cares very much about victims. He speaks of the need 

for victims’ legislation, not for a constitutional amendment. 

I think of Mrs. Patricia Perry, who is sitting in the front row 

with her husband, John. Her son was killed on September 11th. He 

had finished his career as a police officer and had passed in his resignation papers in the normal course of events, and turned in his 

badge. The call came for the attack on the Trade Center Towers 

and he went back, retrieved his badge, and went in to save people 

in the Trade Towers. He did not come out. 

These are people concerned about victims. But I think they agree 

that you can’t have a ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution to victims’ rights. 

I’m afraid that’s what happens here in this amendment. Even the 

distinguished Senator from California quoted Laurence Tribe. Well, 

Laurence Tribe also said ‘‘the States and Congress, within their respective jurisdictions,. already have ample authority to enact rules 

protecting [victims] rights’’ without the constitutional amendment 

he has worked on. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask ourselves why should we 

amend our Constitution for only the 18th time in 200 years, and 

whether it might be better to put all our energies into funding the 

victims’ programs that are there. 

Again, I thank you for your courtesies on this. I would also note 

for the record how much work you and Senator Feinstein have put 

into this. I think with both of you it has been a labor of love in 

the truest sense of the word. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. 

I would at this time include, without objection, into the record 

letters from the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 

Crime Victims United of Oregon, Roberta Roper and Russell Butler 

of the Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center; a letter from Parents of Murdered Children, from NOVA, from Racial Minorities for 

Victims Assistance, and Sue Russell of the State of Vermont. Without objection, those letters will be inserted in the record. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a packet of letters. 

May I insert those as well? 

Senator KYL. Yes, those will also be inserted, without objection. 

Now, even though the first three of us who have spoken exceeded 

the five minute limit that we ordinarily impose, and we’re going to 

ask our witnesses to abide by, I would like to ask everyone else, 

if they can possibly do so, to try to abide by that. I’m sorry to say 

that just before I call on Senator Durbin first. 

9

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. I’ll try to make my statement even briefer. I 

thank both you and Senator Feinstein for your good faith effort to 

take this work product and make it much more compact. 

It still raises some fundamental questions that I believe Senator 

Leahy has addressed, because I think what we all agree on is that 

victims should have a right to be notified, to be informed, and to 

be present. Now we have a competing right, too, and that would 

be the right of the accused. With a presumption of innocence, with 

the establishment of constitutional protections, does this amendment preempt or take away any of the rights of the accused in 

America? I think that is a legitimate threshold question. If the answer is yes, which rights are now removed from criminal defendants? 

Senator Feingold and I have both offered amendments to this 

constitutional amendment at various times over the last several 

years that would say ‘‘nothing herein shall deny the rights of an 

accused under the Constitution.’’ Both times those amendments 

have been defeated in the Judiciary Committee, which certainly 

raises the question, if not the presumption, that we are preempting 

the rights of the accused defendant. If we are doing so, let’s do it 

honestly. Let’s be open about it. 

When the Department of Justice comes to testify, I’m going to 

ask Professor Dinh early in my questioning just which rights of the 

criminal defendants are we going to remove, or restrict, or hamper, 

by protecting the rights of victims. If there are none, then we 

should say it straight out. If there are some, let’s also be very explicit about it. 

We also have a question here, which I raised about the earlier 

version of this amendment, which gets down to some basics: who 

are victims? It is easy to find the victim of an assault, to identify 

that person and to say that is the protected person. But in the case 

of a murder, who is the victim? Is it the mother and father of the 

victim who died? Is it the brother and sister? Who will it be? How 

many people will have rights vested by this constitutional amendment? 

There is also a question about a lawful representative of the victim, another undefined term here, which also is going to raise some 

questions about the responsibility of the State to notify the lawful 

representatives of the victims and the victims themselves of their 

constitutional rights. So many questions have been raised by it. 

I will close by saying I start with the same presumption that I 

start with any constitutional amendment: there is a reason why, in 

the history of the United States of America, we have amended this 

Constitution so rarely. It is because we assume that the Constitution and the amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights, have 

stood the test of time, and we should never be so presumptuous as 

to believe that we can take a roller to a Rembrandt and make it 

look a little better. We ought to start with the presumption that, 

if we can do it by statute, we should do it by statute and not by 

constitutional amendment. That, of course, is my concern as we go 

into this debate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Feingold.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSS FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer 

statement that I would also like to include in the record. I will 

come well within the 5 minutes because all I have to do is strongly 

associate myself with the remarks of Senator Durbin that were, to 

my mind, very effective, and I will just say a few other words. 

I share the desire to ensure that those in our society who most 

directly feel the harm callously inflicted by criminals do not suffer 

yet again at the hands of a criminal justice system that ignores victims. 

But Congress should proceed very carefully when it comes to 

amending the Constitution. I believe that Congress can better protect the rights of victims by ensuring that current State and Federal laws are enforced, providing resources to prosecutors and the 

courts, as Senator Leahy has said, to allow them to enforce and 

comply with existing laws and working with victims to enact additional Federal legislation, if needed. 

As Senator Durbin indicated, in the 214-year history of the 

United States Constitution, only 27 amendments have been ratified, just 17 since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Two of 

the 17 concerned prohibition and so they cancelled each other out. 

Yet, literally hundreds of constitutional amendments have been introduced in just the past few Congresses. 

To change the Constitution now is to say that we have come up 

with an idea that the Framers of that great charter did not. I do 

not believe that the basic calculus of prosecutor, defendant and victim has changed enough since the foundation of the Republic to 

justify this significant action. 

Now, as a Senator in the Wisconsin State Senate, I did vote in 

favor of amending the Wisconsin State Constitution to include protections for victims. The majority of States now do have State constitutional protections for victims, and every State in the country 

has statutes to protect victims. 

But the Wisconsin State Constitution, like a number of other 

State constitutions, appropriately clarifies that the rights granted 

to victims cannot reduce the rights of the accused in a criminal proceeding. That is why Senator Durbin and I have tried, unsuccessfully, to have this kind of a protection added to this amendment, 

because that would make a huge difference. 

I am also concerned that a victims’ rights amendment could jeopardize the ability of prosecutors to investigate their cases, to prosecute suspected criminals, and balance the competing demands of 

fairness and truth-finding in the criminal justice system. 

So today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the 

issue of whether it is necessary for Congress to take the rare and 

extraordinary step of amending the Constitution to protect the 

rights of victims. 

Thank you for the chance to speak, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.] 

11

Senator KYL. Thank you. All of the questions have been raised, 

and I think they’re good and appropriate questions, and now we’ll 

hear from some witnesses who perhaps can answer those questions. 

We would like to begin with Mr. Viet Dinh. Viet, if you would 

take the dias, I will introduce you. 

Viet Dinh is Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal 

Policy at the Department of Justice. Prior to his entry into government service, Mr. Dinh was professor of law and deputy director 

of Asian Law and Policy Studies at the Georgetown University Law 

Center. 

Mr. Dinh graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard College and the Harvard Law School. He was a law clerk to Judge 

Lawrence H. Silverman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit, and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. 

He is joined by Mr. John Gillis, who is Director of the Office of Victims of Crime. 

We welcome you both. Mr. Dinh, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF VIET D. DINH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DINH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Senators. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. 

I have a fuller statement that I would ask to be entered into the 

record in the interest of time. I will take a few moments to reiterate the Department’s and the administration’s support for this 

crime victims’ rights amendment. 

As the President stated last year, ‘‘The protection of victims’ 

rights is one of those rare instances where amending the Constitution is the right thing to do, and the Feinstein–Kyl Crime Victims’ 

Rights Amendment is the right way to do it.’’ 

Today, as you have noted, is part of National Crime Victims’ 

Rights Week, and it is fitting, it seems to me, that this year’s 

theme is ‘‘Fulfill the Promise’’, because it has been over two decades since President Reagan convened his landmark task force on 

victims of crime, and Congress passed the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982. 

Yet the promise remains unfulfilled and victims of crime continue to be silenced by a criminal justice system intended to protect 

them. Although I agree that, as a general matter, we should be 

wary of attempts to amend the Constitution, this is one of those 

times when it is both necessary and prudent. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Feinstein, 

for your continued leadership and advocacy for a victims’ rights 

amendment. Having participated in countless meetings and discussions, I know that this is, indeed, a labor of love and a labor of passion for the team of lawyers that worked endlessly to craft this 

amendment. 

I would like to thank Matt Lamberti and Stephen Higgins here 

in the Senate, Lizette Benedi and Paul Clement from the Department of Justice, and of, course, Steve Twist, from the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network. 

I talked a number of times with Professors Larry Tribe and Paul 

Cassell during this process, and I can reiterate that they deserve 

12

support, thanks and praise for all of their expertise and effort in 

this regard. 

Currently, all 50 States and the Federal Government have 

passed legislative measures to protect victims’ rights, and 33 States 

have amended their constitutions to do so. However, these efforts, 

while substantial, have proven inadequate to protect victims’ rights 

when courts compare them with the Federal constitutional rights 

of criminal defendants. In 1998, a National Institute of Justice 

study concluded that ‘‘a strong victims’ rights law makes a difference, but even where there is strong legal protection, victims’ 

needs are not fully met.’’ 

The proposed amendment, if enacted, undoubtedly will prompt 

significant adjustments in the criminal justice system. That is why, 

in evaluating S.J. Res. 1, the Department has viewed our support 

of the rights of crime victims in light of our responsibilities to enforce the criminal laws of the United States vigorously and effectively, and our commitment to fairness and justice for all persons, 

including those accused of crimes. We believe that the proposed 

amendment properly protects and advances all of these interests. 

The Department believes that protecting the rights of victims of 

crimes is not only consistent with but advances our core mission 

of prosecuting perpetrators of crime. That is especially true under 

the proposed amendment, which we believe provides sufficient 

flexibility to ensure that investigators and prosecutors are able to 

discharge their duty to bring offenders to justice in a timely and 

efficient manner. That is why 41 State Attorneys General, as you 

have noted, Mr. Chairman, through their national association, have 

written a strong letter of support for this amendment, a letter 

which the Attorney General received this morning and which Senator Feinstein has entered into the record. 

This amendment has been carefully crafted to protect the rights 

of victims while ensuring the proper investigation and prosecution 

of crime. It does so by allowing for restrictions on victims’ rights 

only where there is a substantial interest in public safety or the 

administration of criminal justice. 

The Department looks forward to working with you to see that 

this measure is passed, and to assisting you in fashioning appropriate implementing legislation should it pass. 

I am at your disposal now to answer any questions you may 

have. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dinh appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Dinh. 

Let me ask you, since you’re going to be gone at the time the 

next panel—well, you may not be gone, but you won’t be on the 

dias here. 

Mr. DINH. Do you know something I don’t, sir? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KYL. After our next panel testifies is what I was trying 

to say. 

I noted in his written testimony that one of the presenters on the 

next panel, Mr. Orenstein, has identified two very narrow examples, in his view, of where the crime victims’ rights amendment 

13

might harm law enforcement efforts. I would like to have you respond to those in advance of his testimony. 

First he is concerned that giving rights to victims in organized 

crime cases might interfere with their prosecutions. I would ask 

you whether or not you agree with me, that it’s true that, under 

this amendment, no such notice would have to be given. 

Second, he is concerned that in the rare situation in which the 

victim is actually a prisoner already, that they would have to be 

transported to court. I would ask you whether it’s true that, under 

the amendment, there is no such requirement for transportation of 

prison victims that is necessary. 

Could you respond to those two concerns that he has expressed? 

Mr. DINH. Yes, sir. They are both very good points that Mr. 

Orenstein raises, but I think ultimately not ones that have not 

been thought of by you, the sponsors, and not adequately addressed 

in the amendment. 

First of all, the question of notice, especially in the case of organized crime—I believe Mr. Orenstein mentioned his experience in 

the John Gotti trial, and with the cooperation of Mr. Gravano—I 

note that section 2 of the amendment affords victims a right to 

‘‘reasonable and timely notice.’’ The phrase ‘‘reasonable’’, of course, 

is one that is common in constitutional law, including reasonable 

search and seizure in the 4th Amendment and other places within 

the Constitution. It affords the court, when faced with the question, 

sufficient flexibility to decide that, where notice would jeopardize 

a prosecution or pose a danger to the victim or other persons, then 

it would not be reasonable to provide such notice. 

In case that is not sufficient, I note that the last sentence of section 2 provides that ‘‘these rights shall not be restricted except 

when and to the degree dictated by a substantial interest in public 

safety or the administration of justice’’, thereby providing another 

opportunity for courts, prosecutors and investigators to consider restrictions on victims’ rights in order to afford a substantial interest 

in public safety or the administration of justice. 

I think the drafters of the amendment have very wisely considered that the interests of the prosecution are, in most cases, consonant with and complementary to the rights of victims. But where 

the rights of victims, if guaranteed to an absolute extent, would 

jeopardize the public safety or the prosecutorial interest, then reasonable accommodations can be made in order to ensure that the 

two teams are working together rather than working against each 

other. 

With respect to the second question of prisoner transport, that is 

a very interesting question. I have not thought about it very much 

because it involves an area of prisoner litigation and personal 

rights that is ongoing as a daily matter in the Supreme Court and 

elsewhere. 

But I would like to note that the right that is afforded under section 2 to attendance is ‘‘the right not to be excluded from such public proceeding’’. It is not a right to attend, as such. It is a right not 

to be excluded. It is a right not to be turned away at the gates. It 

does not speak of a right, an affirmative right, or incentive to attend a particular proceeding. 

14

So I would think that, just as the government need not provide 

cab fare to normal victims, the government need not provide transportation to a particular proceeding because the right guaranteed 

is a right not to be excluded. 

But, even so, I guess one other point I would like to make is, 

under the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the constitutional rights 

of prisoners and the penalogical interest of the United States and 

other State governments in a case, I believe, called Turner v. 

Saffley, a case where Justice O’Connor wrote that the proper test 

for balancing the constitutional rights of prisoners, if this constitutional amendment were passed and a prisoner is a victim, then 

that constitutional right would be afforded to the prisoner. But in 

balancing that interest of the constitutional right of prisoners and 

the State’s interest, the appropriate standard is not one of strict 

scrutiny or undue burden that we are familiar with, but rather it 

is whether or not a policy is reasonably related to a State’s 

penalogical interest. 

So I think there is sufficient room in the constitutional law in 

order to accommodate the concerns that Mr. Orenstein raised. But 

in any event, I do not think they are raised with respect to the specific text of this amendment. 

Senator KYL. So the United States Department of Justice is comfortable that the amendment, as currently drafted, would not interfere with law enforcement efforts? 

Mr. DINH. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. 

Mr. DINH. Good morning. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I wanted to ask you to respond to Senator 

Durbin’s concern, and that is that this amendment does not trample on or subjugate a defendant’s rights. When this was redrafted, 

this time we tried to meet that concern, and the way we met it was 

in section 1, right up front, with these words: 

‘‘The rights of victims of violent crime being capable of protection 

without denying the constitutional right of those accused of victimizing them are hereby established and shall not be denied by any 

State or the United States, and may be restricted only as provided 

in this Article.’’ 

You mentioned the balancing test, which I think both Senator 

Kyl and I have wanted to protect, with the knowledge that a judge 

can balance those rights. But my question to you is, do you believe 

that the way the amendment is drafted presently does not abrogate 

any right that a defendant or an accused possesses under the Constitution? 

Mr. DINH. Yes, ma’am, I do agree, and it starts with a statement 

of principle in section 1. It is a very important statement of principle which I think informs the interpretation of the rest of the provisions, most significantly the substantive provisions of section 2, 

which grants the operative rights and restrictions therein for the 

particular amendment. 

With respect to section 2, I would like to note that the balancing 

test that you speak of specifically is contemplated by the amendVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Nov 19, 2003 Jkt 088328 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89328.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
15

ment. This is one of those rare places in the Constitution—I believe 

it’s the only place in the Constitution—whereby the test is actually 

specified so as to give proper guidance to the court on how to balance exactly these rights that may come into tension. The amendment states that ‘‘these rights shall not be restricted, except when 

and to the degree dictated by a substantial interest in public safety 

or the administration of criminal justice, or by compelling necessity.’’ 

A substantial interest in the administration of criminal justice I 

think gives the court the ability to evaluate where rights of criminal defendants under the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th and other places 

in the Constitution come into not conflict but meets the rights of 

the victims afforded under this amendment. Courts would be able 

to delineate the lines between these various rights and accommodate them in a reasonable manner by this specific language, that 

the rights of crime victims may be restricted, but only if there is 

a substantial interest in the administration of criminal justice, including protection of the rights of criminal defendants under the 

4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the United States Constitution. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dinh. I appreciate 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KYL. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Professor Dinh, let me go back to that section 1 and read it. ‘‘The 

rights of victims of violent crime, being capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of those accused of victimizing 

them, are hereby established...’’ 

I read that differently. I think it is a presumption that we can 

give rights to victims without endangering or limiting the rights of 

the accused. But it doesn’t say expressly the following: ‘‘No rights 

vested in victims under this amendment shall be at the cost or at 

the expense of the rights of the accused.’’ 

Wouldn’t that be a clearer statement of what you say is, in fact, 

the meaning or the intent of this amendment? 

Mr. DINH. I do not know what the exact intent of the amendment 

is, but I do know that the meaning is, I think, quite clear on the 

face of the amendment. Section 1 sets forth the principle, the overall principle, that the rights can be reconciled and both sets of 

rights can be protected. 

There is no question that the introduction of a third player, if 

you will, into the criminal justice system that is currently dominated by the prosecutor and the criminal defendant’s interest, the 

introduction of crime victims as full partners in this enterprise 

would have significant impact and would prompt significant adjustments in that criminal justice system. 

I think that the admission of such an equal player, a first-class 

citizen, if you will, into this community of criminal justice, would 

prompt significant development of the law by courts seeking to adjust the criminal justice system in order to fully protect the rights 

of victims. That is why I think the nuance provision that is in the 

last sentence of section 2, that allows for a court to make proper 

accommodations for substantial interest in the administration of 

16

criminal justice, is more of a clearly precise rapier-like approach 

rather than a broad-sword approach to the adjustment that will 

have to be made. 

Senator DURBIN. Let’s try to be specific, then. Let’s get down to 

some specific instances. 

As I read through this, and were this a Federal statute involving 

crime victims’ rights, it would pass 100 to nothing, or close to it, 

on the floor of the Senate. But since we’re talking about a constitutional amendment, there is and should be closer scrutiny to the 

exact words that are used. 

In my mind, the one element here that raises more concern than 

others, is the element of the rights not to be excluded from public 

proceedings and reasonably to be heard, so forth and so on. The 

public proceedings, of course, refer back to any public proceeding 

involving a crime. So I take it what we’re speaking of is the rights 

of the victims to be present at the trial, the trial of the defendant, 

whether they are going to testify or not. That, I think, raises some 

questions that need to be resolved. 

Now, let me go to the end of that section 2. It says, ‘‘These rights 

shall not be restricted except—’’ so the exceptions clause, which you 

referred to in your statement, says the courts can make exceptions 

to the rights of the victims to be at the trial, if they find ‘‘a substantial interest in public safety or the administration of criminal 

justice, or by compelling necessity.’’ 

What’s the difference between a ‘‘substantial interest’’ and ‘‘compelling necessity’’? 

Mr. DINH. Senator, that is a very good question. As you know, 

compelling necessity is a phrase that was used in the previous 

version of the Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment, S.J. Res. 3, in 

the 106th Congress. It is a very high standard for exceptions. That 

is, I think, a derivative of some of the Supreme Court’s cases with 

respect to Executive power, especially in times of danger to the national security. 

The phrase ‘‘substantial interest’’ is one that is derivative from 

the intermediate scrutiny standard of the Supreme Court— 

Senator DURBIN. So it would be a lower standard? 

Mr. DINH. It would be a lower standard in terms of strength. It 

only has to be a substantial interest, rather than a compelling necessity. So as I read this, where the interest is one that touches 

upon public safety, or the administration of criminal justice, it need 

only be substantial for the court to accommodate it and thereby restricting the— 

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you this question. I think in answer 

to Senator Feinstein you said this, but I want to make certain it’s 

clear. 

Is it your belief that the phrase ‘‘the administration of criminal 

justice’’, which is the basis for an exception to the right of the victim to be present at trial, would include a consideration by the 

court as to whether the presence of the victim would in any way 

diminish or deny the rights of the criminally accused? 

Mr. DINH. Senator, let me answer that a little bit more completely by recounting a phrase that I see every single day when I 

come in to see the Attorney General. Right outside his office in the 

rotunda is a quote that says, ‘‘The United States wins its point 

17

whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.’’ So yes, I do believe that justice is done when victims are fully represented in the 

criminal justice system, and when defendants’ rights are fully protected. 

I do think that the system and the administration of criminal 

justice has to accommodate not only the interest of the United 

States in prosecuting the guilty and exonerating the innocent, but 

also the rights of victims to be present and the rights of criminal 

defendants to have a fair trial. 

Senator DURBIN. So if I might, Mr. Chairman, I just have two 

questions that are important to me and I hope we can have a few 

minutes to answer them. 

Let’s get to a specific situation. Let’s assume that a judge—and 

this constitutional amendment is on the books. A judge takes a 

look at the prospect of bringing into the courtroom a group of victims who could be the families of the actual victim of a violent 

crime, or actual victims themselves. The judge believes that the 

presence of those victims in the courtroom would somehow impede 

the constitutional right guaranteed to an impartial jury. The judge 

believes that their presence in the courtroom might do that. 

Do you believe that they have established in section 2 the 

grounds for that judge to say the constitutional rights of the victims do not supersede the substantial interest of the accused to an 

impartial jury and, therefore, I will restrict the victims from the 

courtroom? 

Mr. DINH. I do not think I can venture a specific answer to your 

particular hypothetical, but I do think that under the language of 

the amendment, a judge can consider a substantial interest in the 

proper administration of criminal justice, and it may very well be 

how he conducts his courtroom includes such a substantial interest. 

Without going into a prognostication as to how this amendment 

would be interpreted and how judges would decide cases in particular instances, I do think there is sufficient flexibility in the 

amendment in order to afford a judge the opportunity to control his 

courtroom to best protect the interests of the criminal defendants, 

the rights of criminal defendants, and for a prosecutor to make decisions in order to advance the interest of the prosecution. 

Senator DURBIN. But you wouldn’t quarrel with the conclusion 

that if the exception relates to the administration of justice—and 

I think we have come to a conclusion that that includes the rights 

of the accused—then it certainly would relate to constitutional protections, specific constitutional protections, that the accused have 

in America, such as the right to an impartial jury? 

Mr. DINH. I think that would be right that the administration of 

criminal justice include fairness to criminal defendants and fundamental protection of rights guaranteed in the Constitution. But in 

any event, where there are constitutional rights that may be intentioned and where a line has to be drawn, that is a task that has 

traditionally been done by courts, according to standards that are 

well-established in the constitutional law doctrines. 

I think this particular sentence affords further guidance along 

the lines you suggest. 

Senator DURBIN. My last question is this. 

18

Let me take you from what I think is an easier conclusion to a 

little more contentious one, and that is the fact that we have sequestered witnesses from trials historically because we believe 

they’ll ‘‘go to school’’ on other witnesses, that they will pick up information that is testified to and repeat it as their own, whether 

they’re conscious of that or not. So it has been kind of a standard 

of evidence that, unless you are a party to a case, or have a statutory right to be present, you are excluded from the courtroom until 

you’re called to testify. 

Now we’re in a situation where we’re dealing with victims, and 

possibly victims’ families. Is the same basic standard going to 

apply? Do you believe the ‘‘substantial interest’’ exception under 

the administration of criminal justice allows a judge to determine 

that the presence of the victims or victims’ families in the courtroom might in some way reduce the likelihood that they will be 

credible witnesses and, therefore, should be excluded? 

Mr. DINH. The short answer to your question, Senator, is I do not 

know. I do know that under the current system, under Federal 

Rules of Evidence 615, there is discretion for a judge to make such 

kinds of determinations. I also know that in the Crime Victims 

Clarification Act of 1997, after the Timothy McVeigh issue that the 

Chairman raised and Senator Feinstein raised, Congress spoke 

specifically to the rights of victims in those circumstances. 

Both of these, of course, are statutory in nature. The Federal 

Rules of Evidence is pursuant to the laws of Congress to adopt it, 

and so is the Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997. Those you 

are free to amend and interpret or legislate as you see fit. I think 

the specific application of this amendment as it relates to future 

cases, should it pass, is I think for the courts to finally adjudicate. 

Senator DURBIN. My last question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. 

Section 1 begins with the rights of victims of violent crime. As 

you testify today, is it your belief that the term ‘‘violent crime’’ 

means crime as defined by both Federal and state statutes? 

Mr. DINH. Yes. The amendment would be an amendment to the 

Constitution, and under Article VI of the Constitution, the supremacy clause, it would apply to State officials just as well as it does 

to Federal law. 

Senator DURBIN. Maybe I wasn’t clear. In my State of Illinois, 

the definition of violent crime is different than the Federal standard. So if someone is guilty of a violent crime in Illinois, by State 

definition, that doesn’t meet the standard by Federal definition, 

which standard will apply to the phrase ‘‘the rights of victims of 

violent crime’’? 

Mr. DINH. Crimes of violence are somewhat variously defined 

within 18 USC, the Federal Code. And as you know, it is defined 

in various statutes around the country, also. 

Because this will be a constitutional amendment, and the word 

‘‘violent crime’’ will be of constitutional dimension, I would imagine 

the courts, in interpreting the scope of that right and the meaning 

of the adjective ‘‘violent’’ would be informed by the various legislative enactments that are extant. But I think the definition itself 

will be one of constitutional import that does not admit to either 

Federal or State legislative definition but may be both or neither. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. 

19

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator KYL. Yes, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. May I just for the record say that the use of 

the words ‘‘administration of criminal justice’’ is just that, and 

there are three phases: preconviction, conviction, and post-conviction. The intent is that it cover those three phases. 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

First of all, Senator Durbin, I would invite you and other members of the Committee, if he is willing to do so, to submit additional 

written questions to Viet Dinh at the Department of Justice, to further amplify all of your questions. I thought your questions were 

very good questions, and there are good answers to them. 

For example, as one of the authors, I agree with everything that 

Viet Dinh has just testified to, but would further note that with regard to the last point, section 4 provides that Congress shall have 

the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of 

this article. It was our intention that questions such as definitions 

of who are victims, what kind of notice is required and by whom, 

and your last point, the definition of violent crime, could well be 

dealt with by appropriate Congressional legislation. 

If there are no further questions of Viet Dinh—yes, sir. 

Mr. DINH. Can I make just one comment, one note on your last 

point, Senator? The language of section 4 deliberately tracks the 

language of section 5 of the 14th Amendment and section 2 of the 

13th Amendment. As you know, there is well-established constitutional precedent as to the proper scope of Congressional authority 

under those provisions and, should this amendment pass, we would 

gladly work with you in order to comment on the appropriate legislation. 

Senator KYL. We appreciate that very much. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if I might be recognized for just 

a moment, I thank Professor Dinh for his testimony and I accept 

your invitation to continue this dialogue. 

I have to leave to go to another hearing, and I assure those who 

are here for the second panel that I will read their testimony carefully. I appreciate this opportunity for this hearing today. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. And thank you, Viet Dinh, 

for your presence here, and John Gillis as well. We appreciate your 

being here. 

Now, would the members of the second panel please come forward. I will introduce you as you are coming forward, and then 

we’ll just take you in turn. I’m going to turn to Congressman Royce 

in just a moment to further introduce a couple of you. 

Collene Campbell, who will be further introduced, and her husband, Gary, live in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Collene was the first 

woman to be mayor of San Juan Capistrano. After her son was 

murdered in 1982, she founded Memory of Victims Everywhere, or 

MOVE. 

Her family suffered another blow in 1988, when her brother, race 

care legend Mickey Thompson and his wife, Trudy, were murdered. 

Earlene Eason was raised in Chicago. She was a nurses assistant 

and now works in day care. She has raised three sons. Her son, 

Christopher, was murdered in 2000. 

20

James Orenstein is an attorney in private practice in New York 

City and an adjunct professor at the law schools of Fordham University and New York University. From 1990 until June, 2001, he 

served in the U.S. Department of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. 

Patricia Perry is the mother of a New York City police officer 

who died in the 9/11 attacks, which was referred to in Senator Leahy’s testimony. 

Duane Lynn met his wife, Nila, when they were 16. They married at 19. After five-and-a-half years in the Navy, Duane joined 

the Arizona Highway Patrol. He was a dispatcher, road officer, helicopter medic. Duane and Nila had six children and 12 grandchildren. His wife, Nila, was murdered on April 19, 2000. 

Steve Twist is a lawyer in Phoenix. He’s a former Chief Assistant 

Attorney General for the State of Arizona, and now serves as General Counsel for the National Victims of Constitutional Amendment 

Network. Mr. Twist is the author of the Arizona constitutional 

amendment for victims’ rights and its implementing legislation. He 

teaches victims’ rights law at the College of Law at Arizona State 

University, where he has also founded a free legal clinic for crime 

victims. 

At this time let me turn to Congressman Ed Royce, a Member 

of the United States House of Representatives from California, for 

a further introduction of a whole variety of Californians who are 

with us today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ED ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Representative ROYCE. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. I appreciate that. 

I’m the sponsor of the victims’ rights amendment on the House 

side, and I am privileged to introduce Collene Thompson Campbell, 

who like our Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, is from Orange 

County, CA. 

In 1982, Collene’s son, Scott, was murdered. His body was tossed 

out of an airplane at 2,000 feet and never recovered. Scott’s death, 

and the near decade of grief and struggle it took to bring his killers 

to justice, prompted Collene to become involved in the victims’ 

rights movement and to start a group called Memory of Victims Everywhere. 

In 1988, Collene helped me pass Proposition 115, the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act. She helped put it on the ballot. It required a million signatures, and it passed overwhelmingly in the 

State. That proposition made historic changes in California law 

that changed the way our criminal justice system treats victims, in 

some of the same ways that you intend to change here with this 

constitutional amendment. Many other States have copied its provisions. 

Collene’s tragedy did not end with her son’s case, and her involvement did not end with Proposition 115. In March of 1988, 

Collene’s brother, race car driver Mickey Thompson, and his wife, 

Trudy, were gunned down in their own driveway in LA County. 

Like her son’s case, that case has taken years of investigation, and 

the case is now finally awaiting trial. 

21

One has to ask, how can we allow our criminal justice system to 

add to the terrible grief these families are forced to endure? This 

amendment would help reform that injustice. 

Through all this, when others would have long ago given up 

hope, Collene has never stopped working. Four U.S. Presidents 

have honored her for her work on behalf of the rights of crime victims and their families. Her dedication and her unselfishness, her 

commitment, have made a difference for crime victims in California 

and across the country. I am very privileged to introduce to you my 

good friend, Collene Thompson Campbell. 

I thank you, Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Congressman Royce. I was 

going to ask whether we should go first from the left to right or 

right to left, but being a conservative, I’m going to start at the 

right, how’s that? 

[Laughter.] 

I might say that we have asked each of the witnesses to confine 

their remarks to 5 minutes. When I met with several of you this 

morning, you asked how can you possibly describe in 5 minutes all 

of the feelings that you’ve had about these issues, particularly 

when it has taken so long—in the case of Mrs. Campbell, for example. We understand that it’s very difficult to do all of this within 

a short period of time, and we therefore especially appreciate your 

efforts to do so. 

Collene? 

STATEMENT OF COLLENE THOMPSON CAMPBELL, CITY 

COUNCILWOMAN, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAMPBELL. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is 

Collene Thompson Campbell, and it is really tough to be here. Honorable Kyl, Honorable Feinstein, Honorable Senator, I thank you 

for giving me this opportunity. 

My only son is dead because of a weak and forgiving justice system. And yes, we may be one of the hardest hit families in the nation, but we are just one victim’s family out of hundreds of thousands. We continue to be deeply saddened by all four of the September 11th terrorist attacks, but we also know that every ten 

weeks in our Nation as many people are murdered right here in 

the country, every ten weeks. 

Our son Scott was strangled by two repeat felony criminals and 

thrown from an airplane, and we never found him. We couldn’t 

even have a funeral for him. My brother, my only sibling, my 

friend, auto racer legend Mickey Thompson and his wife, Trudy, 

were shot to death as they were simply leaving their home on their 

way to work in the morning. 

For any family to deal with murder is near impossible, but to 

allow the American justice system to add additional pain is shameful. 

The U.S. Constitution was written to protect, balance and establish justice—and that is true—unless and until you have the misfortune of becoming a victim of crime. 

There has been tremendous pain in our family, and multiplying 

that grief is the fact that the moment we became a victim of crime, 

our rights were ignored in favor of killers. That means a murderer 

22

or rapist has rights not afforded to honest victims, all because the 

victim is not mentioned in our Constitution. 

My husband and I were not permitted, not permitted, to be in 

the courtroom during all three trials for the men who murdered 

our son. We weren’t going to be witnesses. They just kicked our 

fanny out of there and forced us to sit in the hall. Yet the killers, 

with all of their family, were inside the courtroom portraying the 

family unit. We were not allowed to be heard, yet the killers’ family 

were able to testify, proclaiming goodness about the evil defendants. 

We were not notified of a district court appeal hearing. Therefore, no one was there to represent our murdered son, Scotty. Yet, 

in full force, 40 members of the killers’ group were present. The 

murder case was then overturned and there is yet to be another 

trial. The killer was released without concern for our safety, and 

we learned of all of this through the media. 

I called the Attorney General’s prosecutor in our case and I 

asked why she hadn’t notified us regarding the appeal. Her answer 

was demeaning, but very typical. She said, ‘‘We never notify the 

victims. They simply don’t understand.’’ However, we knew the 

true reason we were not notified. Unlike the killer’s defense, she 

was not required to notify us because we were only the mom and 

dad of the murder victim, his next-of-kin. We weren’t the killer so 

they didn’t have to notify us. 

I could go on and on, but I can guarantee you that the treatment 

that we and thousands of other victims receive is the product of 

others before us doing nothing. Hopefully, you will work to change 

that. I don’t know what we’re waiting for. 

You rarely hear from people like me because victims are too devastated to talk—and I’m devastated, as you can tell. We received 

no financial help in our attempt to expose the true victims’ world, 

nor do we have attorneys representing us. We pay our own way in 

an effort to improve the justice system to save others. I paid my 

own way to be here today. 

All we have is the honesty and integrity of good Americans asking for a balanced justice system, and we need your help now. 

At a huge cost to taxpayers and our life personally, we have been 

forced to be in the justice system for 21 straight years, with no 

right for a speedy trial. And there’s no end in sight for our family. 

And what kind of a torture in the justice system is that for a family 

who is trying to live a normal life? 

We ask you to move forward with a proposed constitutional 

amendment to give the same rights to victims as the accused have. 

The amendment we seek does not take away rights from criminals. 

On behalf of all crime victims, thank you for allowing me to be 

heard—and that’s all crime victims. I only hope you did hear me 

today and that you will react to the real world that we’ve been 

forced to endure. And I want to give a special thanks to Senator 

Kyl and Senator Feinstein, my Senator from California. Thank you 

for caring, thank you for seeing the truth, and we really do appreciate you. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Campbell appears as a submission for the record.] 

23

Senator KYL. Thank you, Collene. We will now hear from Earlene 

Eason of Gary, IN. Earlene. 

STATEMENT OF EARLENE EASON, GARY, INDIANA 

Ms. EASON. Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name is Earlene 

Eason, and I presently reside in Gary, IN. I strongly support the 

crime victims’ rights amendment. 

I would like to share with you my unfortunate experience as a 

crime victim after the murder of my 16 year old son, Christopher. 

He was murdered on July 16, 2000. I had relocated from Minneapolis, MN to Gary, IN. About a year after relocating, I thought 

allowing him a few weeks vacation with a neighbor, and previous 

neighbor, Penny Jackson, back in Minneapolis would help ease 

Christopher’s transition to a new city. 

Back in Minneapolis, while on vacation, my son was killed, murdered in a manner which no human being deserves to die. He was 

shot point blank in the lower back with a sawed-off shotgun. 

Forensics revealed that my son was trying to run when he was 

grabbed by the back of the shirt and pulled back onto the barrel 

of the shotgun and then the trigger was pulled. The killer was a 

24 year old from El Salvador. 

After my son’s murder, the criminal justice system in Minneapolis treated me very badly. I was not informed of the death of 

my son by the authorities. Over 13 hours after my son’s body was 

found Ms. Penny Jackson called. My family and I were not told we 

had rights. However, we were promised by the district attorney’s 

office that they would keep in touch with us about the case. This 

would turn out to be an empty promise. 

First, the DA said the charge would be first degree murder. We 

only learned of the actual charges filed—which were second degree 

murder—from the newspaper. Only after the press had printed and 

distributed the newspaper and after we had read it were we notified. 

We also experienced significant financial hardship because of 

other failures to give us adequate notice. All of this wasted expense, which we could not afford, was due to constant trips to Minneapolis for court dates, which were frequently changed without 

adequate notice to me and my fiance. 

My son’s father, who resides in California, purchased several 

flight tickets. He was never informed of any date changes. The district attorney’s office failed to contact him and inform him of anything. He became so frustrated that he gave up on coming out to 

any of the hearings due to the expense of cancelled tickets and the 

fear of losing his job from the disruption of his work schedule because of the failure to notify him. 

The first trial was a hung jury, 11 to 1 to convict. The trial took 

place on October 17th, 2000. When I and other members of the 

family asked for another trial, we were treated as simpletons, as 

if we were invisible. Approximately 2 months later, the DA’s office 

and the defense attorney decided to plea bargain. I was informed 

of this only after the fact. They had already agreed to the plea bargain. I was informed of the initial date for plea and sentencing 

dates, but there were several continuances. We received very short 

24

notice of these changing dates, which was very disruptive to my 

fiance’s job. 

Finally, the date was set for 9–12–01. We were going to fly to 

Minneapolis from Chicago. Then the airports were shut down because of 9/11. I called the district attorney’s office and asked for the 

proceeding to be re scheduled. The deputy DA affirmatively discouraged me from attending. He believed it was more important to 

have a tactical advantage by getting a sentence the day after 9/11 

than it was important for me, the mother of a murdered son, to attend and speak at the sentencing of my son’s killer. 

The DA did not ask the court for a continuance on our behalf, 

even though there had been many continuances granted for other 

reasons, and I had never asked for a continuance before. As a result, I was unable to appear in court to try to object to the plea 

bargain or speak at sentencing, even though it was very important 

to do so. My son’s cold-blooded killer is getting only 11 years of real 

time for killing my son. I feel like the DA and the justice system 

thought this was just another African–American kid killed and that 

our family didn’t deserve to be treated with plain decency. 

I was told I could not get restitution. This does not seem right. 

The constitutional amendment would greatly help victims efforts to 

get restitution. We were assured we would get financial help even 

for therapy, and I went for as long as long as I could afford to pay 

for it out of my own pocket. I then had to stop because I could no 

longer afford it. As a result of no therapy, I became physically sick 

and could not work. To this day, I have received no financial assistance for therapy. 

In closing, I would like to say we were treated without compassion or respect by a justice system that really didn’t care. People 

receive more compassion for the loss of a pet than we received from 

the justice system for the loss of our son. 

I would like to ask the Senate to hear us, to realize that the victims of crime should not have to take this any more. I feel powerless, but I know you have the power to vote yes on the constitutional amendment, to keep what happened to us from happening 

to anyone else. It is time for you to stand by me and for you to pass 

this amendment so that people like me don’t have to take this any 

more. We should have had rights in this, and we had none. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eason appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Ms. Eason. 

Mr. Patricia Perry. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA PERRY, SEAFORD, NEW YORK 

Mrs. PERRY. Thank you, Senators Kyl and Feinstein, and Honorable Ed Royce, for this opportunity to share my views on the proposed victims’ rights amendment. 

My name is Patricia Perry and I speak on behalf of my husband, 

James, our daughter, Janice Perry Montoya, and our son, Joel 

Perry, in memory of their brother, our son, John William Perry, a 

New York City police officer who volunteered to assist employees 

escaping the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and himself became a victim. 

25

John graduated from New York University School of Law, but he 

wanted the experience of being a police officer. When he received 

the opportunity to enter the New York City Police Academy, he left 

his partnership in a law firm and eagerly trained to learn how to 

protect the public from those who would cause harm. 

While in the NYPD, John also served as a pro bono lawyer for 

those whose civil rights or civil liberties had been violated. He 

served as legal advisor to the Kings County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and was a volunteer arbitrator for the 

small claims court in Manhattan, and also served as a lieutenant 

in the New York State Guard. He was serious about his goals, but 

full of humor and had an infectious smile. 

After 8 years of service in the NYPD, which included nearly 5 

years in the legal department, John decided he would return to private law practice. On September 11th, 2001, John went to One Police Plaza, completed his retirement papers, and turned in his 

badge. The first plane crashed through Tower One. He immediately 

retrieved his badge and ran to the World Trade Center, just minutes away. He met a friend, Captain Pearson, and entered the underground plaza. They worked together to help panicked workers 

find a safe way out of the area. He did not find safety for himself 

and became a victim. 

John believed in the integrity of the Constitution and the Bill of 

Rights, and the institutions of our government that are established 

to pursue the guilty through legal means. Our system, as we have 

heard, is not infallible. It can at times be both insensitive to the 

needs of victims and less than competent in its prosecution of 

criminals. We know there are cases where the guilty have gone 

unpunished, and where innocent people have been convicted and 

even executed. 

These are issues that need to be addressed, but we suggest this 

amendment is not the appropriate tool, nor will it remedy these 

flaws. Our family agrees that John would appreciate the concern 

for victims, but would oppose the victims’ rights amendment. Our 

family believes the best way for Congress to support victims and 

their families is to promote and support a system of justice that 

provides fair and just convictions of the criminals responsible for 

crimes. We believe this constitutional amendment threatens the 

system of checks and balances in the current justice system and 

that it could actually compromise the ability of prosecutors to obtain convictions for those responsible for the carnage on 9/11. We 

believe that, to the extent this amendment is effective, it is unworkable, and even dangerous. And to the extent that it does nothing, it is an empty promise for victims who need real resources and 

real support. 

We believe that criminal convictions should not be based on the 

emotions of victims and families, particularly in situations where 

we are not relevant witnesses to the crime. On the other hand, victims should clearly have the opportunity to participate in the penalty phases of a case after a defendant has been found guilty. As 

we have seen in the aftermath of this tragedy and others, victims 

do not always agree on the best way a case should be handled. 

Under this amendment, as we understand it, victims would have 

the right to give input in the criminal case even before the convicVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Nov 19, 2003 Jkt 088328 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89328.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
26

tion, which could compromise the government’s prosecution of the 

case. Moreover, if the amendment passes, who will be entitled to 

these constitutional rights? Defining ‘‘victim’’ is not always easy 

and can present problems that cannot be ignored. 

Even the most well-intention efforts cannot always anticipate the 

problems that might arise. Look at the ongoing dissention that has 

been caused in defining ‘‘victim’’ under the Victims’ Compensation 

Act. In a criminal case, it seems that defining victim will be even 

more challenging, particularly when the victim cannot represent 

him or herself. Who decides who is the true representative to be 

heard? How long will it take if every family member of every victim 

of 9/11 is allowed to input a position on procedure of a case against 

someone like Zacharias Moussaoui? 

I was interviewed, as were many family members, by the Justice 

Department, in order for the prosecution to choose a sample of family members to testify during the penalty stage. The Justice Department already determined that not all families are necessary in 

the penalty stage of this trial. 

This proposed amendment allows for the waiving of the right of 

all families to be heard in such cases, but with large numbers of 

victims, who passes the test for inclusion? How will different viewpoints be reconciled if all must be heard? And if, as the amendment 

allows, our newly found constitutional rights are easily waived, the 

intended relief the amendment supposedly provides to victims becomes meaningless. 

We would suggest that instead of focusing on this amendment, 

Congress should ensure that resources are offered as needed to 

help heal the pain and loss of victims and victims’ families, as you 

have before you today. The response of the American and foreign 

populations to our loss on 9/11 has been a great support. But most 

victims do not receive this love and support. Our hope is that we 

all consider the benefits of turning our attention to providing real 

help to victims, and we do so without compromising the integrity 

of our Constitution. 

Many States have begun to provide funds to assist victims of 

crime. More work should be done at the State and Federal legislative level and this amendment is not only distracting legislators 

from doing it, but is also causing hurtful and needless dissentions 

within the victim community. Can you imagine how wrenching it 

is for our family to find ourselves at odds with other victims’ families over this political issue, which will in any event do so little for 

crime victims. 

We want justice for our son, and for the daughters and sons, husbands and wives, partners, mothers and fathers who are victims of 

every crime. We deserve that our government and law enforcement 

personnel protect us as much as possible from harm. My son, John 

Perry, believed strongly in the rule of law and the right of the people to direct our elected representatives, like yourselves, to use 

good judgment in establishing sound laws. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perry appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Ms. Perry. 

Professor James Orenstein, we are pleased to have you with us. 

27

STATEMENT OF JAMES ORENSTEIN, ESQ., NEW YORK, NEW 

YORK, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Mr. ORENSTEIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

members. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. 

As a Federal prosecutor for most of my career, I have been privileged to work closely with a number of crime victims as well as talented lawyers on all sides of this issue, including several here 

today, to make sure that any victims’ rights amendment will provide real relief for victims of violent crimes without jeopardizing 

law enforcement. I think it my be possible to do both, but I also 

believe there are better solutions that do not carry the severe risks 

to law enforcement inherent in using the Constitution to address 

the problem. 

In particular, I believe that the current bill will in some cases 

sacrifice the effective prosecution of criminals to achieve only marginal improvements for their victims. In the last 20 years, Congress 

has enacted several statutes that improve victims’ rights in the 

criminal justice system. One of them, the Victims’ Rights Clarification Act, effectively addressed the problem of victim exclusion from 

the courtroom in the Oklahoma City bombing case, where I was 

one of the prosecution team. 

As a result of that statute, no victim was excluded from testifying at the penalty hearing on the basis of having watched the 

trial. More importantly, in considering whether this amendment is 

necessary and effective, you should know that Judge Matsch’s actions after the enactment of that statute would likely have been exactly the same if this amendment had been in effect. 

In addition to Federal legislation, every single State has enacted 

its own victims’ rights laws. The only thing lacking is uniformity 

in the States’ adoption of the full range of protections that this 

body has provided. As a result, the main benefit to be gained by 

this amendment is not the elimination of injustices that its supporters have described today. Most of those injustices are either already violations of existing law and, therefore, would not be cured 

by this amendment, or are beyond the reach of an amendment that 

promises not to deny the historic protections of the Bill of Rights. 

Instead, the limited benefit would be uniformity in the States, a 

uniformity gained only by allowing Congress to mandate changes 

in State criminal justice systems. The same result, however, could 

likely be achieved without a constitutional amendment through the 

use of Federal spending power to give States proper incentives to 

meet uniform national standards. But unlike reliance on such legislation, using the Constitution to achieve such uniformity carries 

the risk of irremediable problems for law enforcement. 

I want to stress that, in my view, the potential risks for law enforcement are not the result simply of recognizing the legal rights 

of victims. Prosecution efforts are generally more effective if crime 

victims are regularly consulted during the course of a case. There 

are, however, a number of cases where the victim of one crime is 

also the offender in another, and in such cases, this amendment 

could harm law enforcement. 

For example, when a mob soldier decides to testify for the government, premature disclosure of his cooperation can lead to his 

28

murder and compromise the investigation. Under this amendment, 

such disclosures could easily come from victims who are more sympathetic to the criminals than the government. As Senator Kyl 

mentioned before with Mr. Dinh, when John Gotti’s underboss decided to cooperate, he initially remained in jail with Mr. Gotti and 

was at grave risk if his cooperation became known. Luckily, that 

did not happen. But the victims who would have been covered by 

this amendment, had it been in effect at the time, and had the 

wording of this current bill been in effect at the time, they probably 

would have gotten notice. Relatives of those gangsters who the 

underboss had murdered on Gotti’s order would almost certainly 

have been notified, and notified Gotti, if they could have done so. 

I have heard supporters of this amendment answer that this 

problem can be solved simply by closing a cooperator’s guilty plea 

to the public. However, the 1st and 6th Amendments make it extraordinarily difficult to do that. As a result, the need for discretion 

is usually handled not by closing the courtroom but by scheduling 

guilty pleas without notice, and at times when the courtroom is 

likely to be empty. Such pragmatic problem-solving cannot work 

under this amendment. 

In the prison context, inmates who assault one another may have 

little interest in working with prosecutors to promote law enforcement, but they may have a very real and perverse interest in disrupting prison administrations by insisting on the full range of victim services that the courts will allow. Some of those services could 

force prison wardens to choose between costly steps to afford victim 

inmates their participatory rights and foregoing the prosecution of 

offenses committed within prison walls. Either of these choices 

could endanger prison guards. 

The risk to law enforcement arises not from giving rights to 

crime victims but from using the Constitution to do so. There are 

two basic ways this bill could cause more problems than using legislation to protect victims’ rights: first, by not adequately allowing 

for appropriate exceptions, and second, by delaying and complicating trials. I explain at more length in my written statement how 

particular aspects of the wording of the current proposal could 

harm law enforcement. 

I think, in response to what Mr. Dinh was saying before, one of 

the main issues that I still have is the use of the word ‘‘restrictions’’ rather than the word ‘‘exceptions’’ in section 2. That’s a 

change from the version 3 years ago. That could deprive prosecutors and prison officials of the flexibility needed for safe and effective enforcement, and could make the arguments that Mr. Dinh 

was using earlier today ineffective in a court. 

But beyond such wording issues, some problems are created by 

the very fact that, contrary to the claims of some supporters of this 

bill, the current version of the victims’ rights amendment discards 

some of the carefully crafted language that was the product of 

years of study and reflection—and that’s what I’m talking about in 

the difference between ‘‘exceptions’’ and ‘‘restrictions’’. And there 

are other examples in my written remarks. 

Our criminal justice system has done much in recent years to improve the way it treats victims of crimes, and it has much yet to 

do. The Crime Victims’ Assistance Act, co-sponsored by Senator 

29

Leahy and other members of this Committee, is a good example of 

legislation that should be enacted, regardless of whether you also 

amend the Constitution. By adopting a legislative approach now, 

you may well find that the potential harm to law enforcement inherent in the constitutional amendment need not be risked. 

Some say the kinds of concerns I describe today make the perfect 

the enemy of the good. But if supporters of victims’ rights, among 

whose numbers I count myself, allow the desire for a symbolic victory of a constitutional amendment to distract them and to distract 

you from passing legislation that could achieve all of their substantive goals more effectively and with less risk to law enforcement, they run the risk of making the flawed the enemy of the perfect. 

We must never lose sight of the fact that the single best way 

prosecutors and police can help crime victims is to ensure the capture, conviction and punishment of criminals. In my opinion, as a 

former prosecutor, the proposed constitutional amendment achieves 

the goal of national uniformity for crime victims only be jeopardizing law enforcement. By doing so, it ill serves the crime victims 

whose rights and needs we all want to protect. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orenstein appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Professor Orenstein. 

Mr. Duane Lynn.

STATEMENT OF DUANE LYNN, PEORIA, ARIZONA

Mr. LYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. My name is 

Duane Lynn. 

Three years ago, Wednesday, April the 19th, 2000, started out 

like any other ordinary day. But my plans were interrupted and 

the events of that afternoon changed my life and that of my family 

forever. In the middle of the afternoon, an angry, bitter man, 

named Richard Glassel, came into our homeowners association 

meeting in the Vintana Lakes Community where my wife and I 

lived. I resided on the board. He simply walked into the room, announced to everyone ‘‘I’m going to kill you’’, and he started shooting. He had three handguns, one assault rifle, over 700 rounds of 

ammunition, and a suicide note in his pocket. 

He had one purpose in mind that afternoon, to kill everyone that 

he could. He was mad about the way the homeowners association 

trimmed his bushes in his yard months before, and he was going 

to have the last word. Ultimately he wounded several, and he 

killed two before his gun jammed and he was tackled to the 

ground. One of the two killed was my wife. I made it out alive. We 

had been married 49 years and 9 months. We almost made it to 

50. 

We have six kids, and they had been secretly saving up their 

money and were going to give us a 50th wedding anniversary party 

in July. The money ended up paying for a casket. She died in my 

arms there on the floor that afternoon. It all last only just a few 

seconds, 23 seconds of one man’s rage that changed my life forever. 

She was absolutely everything to me. 

But, unfortunately, my story doesn’t stop there. As a result of 

this violent crime, we became victims and faces in our judicial sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Nov 19, 2003 Jkt 088328 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89328.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

tem, something brand new to us. We were told from the very beginning that we could give an impact statement at the sentence phase 

of the trial. At the time, we really didn’t understand just what all 

that meant. All we knew was that it was going to be our time to 

have a voice in this horrible ordeal, our day in court. 

It took almost 3 years for that to happen. Just this past January, 

I gave my impact statement to the jury before the sentence of the 

shooter, Richard Glassel. He had already been found guilty. This 

was after the fact, at the sentencing phase. The courts told me that 

I could talk about my wife in my impact statement. I could talk 

about how this has all made an impact on my life. But I was also 

told that I had to stop short of talking about how I felt this murderer should be sentenced. I could give no comment on that. I even 

had to hand over my impact statement to be preread by the defense attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and the judge. Certain 

parts were ultimately censored, and I had to make the changes. 

Then, right before I read my statement in that courtroom, the defense lawyer, in his closing arguments, made reference to what the 

jury would be hearing from me as a victim and began disclosing my 

every word and my thoughts in a lighthearted manner. One can 

only assume that he wanted to lessen the impact of my statement. 

I couldn’t believe it. 

I never realized, until having gone through this, that there are 

just a handful of players involved in what happens in a courtroom. 

The legal system calls that ‘‘being a party involved’’. The prosecuting attorney is considered a party to what happens in the 

courtroom; the defense attorney is considered a party as to what 

happens in the courtroom; the defendant is considered a party to 

what takes place. All of these parties can give a recommendation 

as to what should happen to Mr. Glassel, what kind of a sentence 

he should have. The jury can hear even the murderer’s family as 

to what they would recommend his sentence should be. Land of the 

free, home of the brave. 

Mr. Glassel dealt with his problems in a cowardly way, and in 

this land of the free, we, as the family of the victim, which was my 

wife, my love, the person that I still expect to see walk through my 

front door every day, as she did for 50 years, she was a real person, 

not just a name and a number on a document. We could say nothing about the consequences of that man who took all this away 

from me. 

My wife is not considered a party in all this. She can’t make a 

recommendation. She has no say. She’s gone. We are her voice now, 

and even though we were there for every step of the way for over 

2 years and 8 months that this process took, with 60 courtroom 

hearings, we by law had to remain silent on this issue. We just 

helplessly sat by there on the front row and we watched all the 

parties give comments concerning the statements and the sentencing. 

You have no idea what that feels like. The evil done by a murderer inflicts tragedy, and that is bad enough. But injuries inflicted 

by friends, our legal system, are even harder to take. More betrayal, more disbelief that this was unfolding as it was. I felt 

kicked around and ignored by the very system the government has 

in place to protect law-abiding citizens. 

31

I was a highway patrolman for 18 years. I lived by the rules. I 

enforced the laws of the State of Arizona. And now I have to sit 

in silence. The jury never heard that I wanted to recommend a life 

sentence. They gave him a death penalty. I had my reasons. 

The system has failed the victim regarding capital punishment 

cases. We understand that our judicial system is there to protect 

the innocent, but in doing so, we erred on the side of a defendant 

and not the family of the victims. There is something wrong when 

a prisoner convicted of first degree murder, two counts, has more 

rights in the courtroom than the families of the victims he has 

murdered. How imbalanced do we want the judicial scale? 

I am here today to ask you to be on the same side as the victim 

of the crime. Allow us, as victims, to make a recommendation as 

to the sentencing of the defendant. Give me a voice and as a party 

in the courtroom. It is our case that is before the Arizona Supreme 

Court now on this very issue. 

I support this amendment and my hope is that in the future victims won’t have to go through the betrayal that we felt by the 

courts. As stated earlier, let’s fulfill the promise. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynn appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Lynn. 

Mr. Twist, you’re next. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. TWIST, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL VICTIMS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NETWORK 

Mr. TWIST. Madam Chairman and Senators, thank you. My name 

is Steve Twist. I am grateful for the invitation to present the views 

of the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network, a national coalition of America’s leading crime victims’ rights and services organization, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the 

National Organization for Victim Assistance, and the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, among many others. 

We especially want to thank you, Senator Feinstein and Senator 

Kyl for your steadfast and faithful leadership on our cause and for 

championing our cause. Let me say also on behalf of our National 

movement how grateful we are to the President and to the Attorney General for remaining also steadfast in pursuit of the goal of 

a constitutional right for crime victims. 

If skeptics needed any more evidence of the need for a Federal 

amendment, the case of Duane Lynn should be all they need. For 

years, critics have said—and you’ve heard it here this morning—

statutes are enough, State constitutional amendments are enough. 

I have asked the critics over these same years to look at the real 

world that confronts victims of crime in criminal cases. Here is 

Duane Lynn’s real world. 

Arizona has a strong State amendment. Among other things, it 

provides victims with the right to be heard at any proceeding involving sentencing. Our legislature has further implemented that 

right by specifically providing that a victim’s right to be heard at 

sentencing includes the right to offer an opinion regarding the appropriate sentence. 

32

We filed a motion seeking to preserve this right for Mr. Lynn. 

The trial court denied our motion. We filed a special action in the 

State Court of Appeals and the court accepted our petition but denied relief. We filed a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme 

Court and asked for a stay. The petition was accepted, but the stay 

was denied. So the sentencing went forward and the jury did not 

hear Mr. Lynn ask for life imprisonment, and the defendant was 

given the death penalty. 

Throughout the legal battle, the courts claimed that for Mr. Lynn 

to ask for life and not death denied the defendant his 8th Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. This is the 

legal culture to which Mr. Orenstein and other critics of our 

amendment remain so hide-bound. This is the culture which he 

and others propose to fix with a statute. 

I have thought how could this be? I must have missed something. 

And then I read Mr. Orenstein’s testimony again and something 

jumped out at me that I had missed. It’s right here in the first 

paragraph, right after he sets the theme that these rights will hurt 

law enforcement and prosecution. And by the way, as a former 

prosecutor for 12 years, who prosecuted violent crime cases and 

who supervised the prosecution of organized crime and racketeering and drug trafficking cases, with all due respect, I dismiss 

the fears that have been presented to the Committee about the 

negative impact on law enforcement and prosecution. 

But you don’t need to listen to me. Those fears are also contradicted by more than a decade of experience in my State. And they 

are also rejected by the California DA’s Association and other DA’s 

around the country, by the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, by the Justice Department. 

These are not the things that are so telling, however, about the 

gulf that divides Mr. Orenstein and myself on the amendment. 

What is telling is right here on the front page. Let me read it to 

you. ‘‘...the current language of the Victims’ Rights Amendment...will achieve marginal procedural improvements for their victims.’’ It is this phrase, ‘‘marginal procedural improvements’’ that 

haunts me. That’s what Mr. Orenstein thinks this is all about, 

marginal procedural improvements. 

I do not presume, as Mr. Orenstein and others do, to decide for 

Collene and Gary Campbell how important it is for them to be in 

the courtroom during the trial of their son’s murderers. I do not 

want to decide for her, and I don’t want my government, in an exercise of hideous paternalism, to decide for her. I don’t presume to 

decide for Miss Eason that it’s marginally important for her to 

know about and be heard about the plea bargain offered to her 

son’s murderers. I don’t presume, as does Mr. Orenstein and others, that it is of marginal value for Duane Lynn to have the same 

right as his wife’s murderer and the murderer’s family to offer his 

opinion on the sentence to be imposed, and to ask for life and not 

the death penalty. 

Mr. Orenstein and others presume these things to be of marginal 

value. In a free society, I prefer to presume that free Americans 

should be able to decide for themselves whether these things are 

marginal. 

33

For 7 years, through extensive hearings in both Houses, we have 

presented to the Congress case after case of injustice. We have presented a strong and, indeed, a compelling national consensus that 

only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can end the injustice: 

former President Clinton, former Vice President Gore, former Attorney General Janet Reno, President Bush, Attorney General 

Ashcroft, the platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties, constitutional scholar Larry Tribe, the list goes on and on, the 

vast majority of Governors, 41 Attorneys General, prosecutors, the 

California DA’s Association, the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, the mainstream of America’s victims’ rights movement, 

leading business groups, and the overwhelming voice of voters in 

33 States, who when asked to support a constitutional rights 

amendment for victims answered yes by over 80 percent, all joined 

together in a chorus that rejects the fear of the critics and stands 

with America’s crime victims to give them the freedom to choose, 

to decide what is important for them in their case in court. 

Nothing but a constitutional amendment will give them that 

freedom. Arizona’s constitution hasn’t done it, Arizona statutes 

haven’t done it. Nothing but an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So, for Duane and Collene and Earlene and the millions who 

stand with them, we ask you to lead their cause. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Twist appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator KYL. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Twist. I was 

called out of the hearing with a reminder that I’m required to be 

at another place right now. But I wasn’t able to acknowledge both 

Cathy and Patty, Duane Lynn’s daughters being here in the front 

row behind Duane. I wanted to be sure and do that. It is not only 

Duane who has been hurt by his wife’s murder, but also his daughters. We very much appreciate your being here, and thank you, Mr. 

Twist, for your statement. 

What I would like to do is ask a question and then turn the hearing over to Senator Feinstein, with recognition that Senator Kennedy is now here. In addition to whatever time he may wish to 

take with questions, Senator Kennedy, if you would like to make 

a statement, feel free to do that as well. And we have left the hearing open for any written questions, so if you have written questions, those would be appropriate as well. 

I had two questions. I have so many questions that I would like 

to ask, particularly of the victims here. I think the statement that 

Mr. Twist just concluded with summarizes the point that would 

have been made, and that is that, in each individual case, there is 

a very real and very personal hurt that occurs when the criminal 

justice system appears to turn its back on victims, not to help them 

through the process. 

I got involved in this, I might say, before I was ever in any elected office, before I ever ran for any elected office, trying to help victims of crime in my own county in Arizona, because I saw that no 

one was giving them a hand and helping them through the process. 

Then I became aware that it wasn’t only that but it was a matter 

of not being able to do basic things—not the same things that defendants do, because, understandably, they’re going to have rights 

that victims could never have—but at least to participate in a way 

34

that would help them work through the process and make others 

aware of their situation. 

There are two very different questions I would like to ask. Mr. 

Twist, I want you to please answer these, if you could. And then, 

if others would like to answer them as well, that’s fine. 

The basic question is, even in a State like Arizona, where you’ve 

done as lot of work—and there is a constitutional provision and a 

statute—you have testified to some extent why that’s insufficient. 

So my first question is, there have been suggestions that a Federal 

statute might work here. What is your opinion of that? Why won’t 

State statutes and a Federal statute work? What is it about a constitutional amendment that would actually protect these rights, 

whereas the State statutes don’t, and in your opinion, a Federal 

statute would not? 

Secondly, precisely to Professor Orenstein’s question—I might 

say, by the way, that those were very good questions. They’re the 

same questions that we’ve been asking over the course of many 

years. Instead of having me tell you, Professor Orenstein, or others, 

how we have tried to deal with those questions—and most of them 

have to do with the exception to the rule, where you may not want 

to have a victim present or where it may be difficult because of the 

number of victims present and so on—but I would like to ask Mr. 

Twist, who was an author of the amendment, to describe how we 

tried to deal with all of those ‘‘what if’’ situations, those 

hypotheticals that may not occur very often, but when they do, 

they’re still important, how we tried to deal with those in this 

amendment. Mr. Twist. 

And I must please beg your forgiveness for having to leave. I 

would like to give the gavel to Senator Feinstein, who will conduct 

the remainder of the hearing. 

Mr. TWIST. Senator Kyl, let me say how grateful we are to you 

also for championing our cause and for your leadership on this 

issue. We’re truly grateful. 

As to the first question, Senator, I think the answer of why a 

Federal amendment as opposed to statutes, or State constitutional 

amendments, is the same answer that James Madison gave to critics of the Bill of Rights, when that question was posed to then Congressman Madison, who offered the bill during the first Congress. 

He observed that only the Constitution of the United States is 

the law of all of us. Only the Constitution of the United States 

reaches in this context to the criminal justice systems of every 

State. Only the Constitution of the United States has the power to 

change the culture of the criminal justice system, and that is clearly what is needed. 

Effectively written laws, constitutional amendments, State statutes, State constitutional amendments, have proven over 20 years 

of experience to be inadequate to change the culture. It is precisely 

for the same reasons that Madison wanted to incorporate the Bill 

of Rights that we seek to incorporate these rights into the law of 

all of us, which is the U.S. Constitution, because only the Constitution has the power to change the culture. 

As to the specific fears of Mr. Orenstein, I respect his views. I 

respect his observation as a former Federal prosecutor of the need 

not to hamper prosecution. But I would say that if you look and 

35

parse through each of the areas of concern—and I believe Mr. Dinh 

did a good job of addressing those—firstly, the Constitution speaks 

of the requirement to provide reasonable notice. It allows exceptions for public safety and for the administration of justice. 

In combination, this carefully-crafted amendment will not admit 

the gross injustices or gross challenges to public safety that Mr. 

Orenstein fears. It simply will not. And were it otherwise, you 

wouldn’t have the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a 

strong voice of law enforcement, behind the amendment. You 

wouldn’t have the endorsement of the Justice Department and the 

prosecutors there. You wouldn’t have the endorsement of the California District Attorneys Association. 

Reasonable notice, with exceptions for public safety and the administration of justice, provide the flexibility that any judge would 

need, any administrator would need, to be able to determine how 

to appropriately and properly protect the public safety and the administration of justice in any case. That’s exactly why the amendment is written in the way it is. 

The same thing is true with the prison examples. Reasonable notice, the right not to be excluded is not the right to force your jailer 

to release you from jail to go to a proceeding. It’s the right not to 

be excluded if you can present yourself there, and if the law otherwise requires that you are not allowed to present yourself there, 

then so be it. The amendment isn’t implicated. 

That’s why it says the right not to be excluded. Even if it didn’t 

say the right not to be excluded, the exception or restriction for 

public safety, if there are safety threats in transporting prisoners, 

there is clearly an exception allowed, a restriction allowed, in those 

circumstances. 

On Mr. Orenstein’s point about the difference between the word 

‘‘restriction’’ and the word ‘‘exception’’, I accept Senator Durbin’s 

characterization. I mean, you read that, you read those sentences 

together, those words together, and the Constitution provides 

enough flexibility for these issues to be resolved by a judge or administrator or whoever would need to do it. 

I would be happy to continue, Senator Feinstein, if you think 

more is necessary. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. [Presiding.] [Mike off.] One thing, all of this 

is crafted in that a plea bargain would not apply. 

Mr. TWIST. I take a broader view than Mr. Orenstein in his testimony has taken, on the flexibility that the courts have under the 

current CFR to close proceedings. I would just commend to the 

Committee’s attention the statement that was submitted by Professor Doug Baloof at Lewis & Clark Law School on this precise 

point, because I think he addresses it very well. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Twist. 

I’m going to defer to Senator Kennedy now and will ask my questions afterwards. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

will include my statement in the record. 

Senator KENNEDY. I want to give Mr. Orenstein a chance to respond to some of the statements that we’ve heard here. They have 

done a pretty good job on your testimony and I would be interested 

in your reaction to this. 

36

Mr. ORENSTEIN. There are several points I would like to address, 

and I will try and be brief. 

On the main one in Mr. Twist’s prepared statement, of course, 

I do not suggest that it should be up to prosecutors or any part of 

the Federal Government to decide which rights of victims are more 

important than others, or which are of more value. My concern is 

that this amendment either accomplishes little and perhaps harms 

more than it can deliver, or that whatever it delivers, it delivers 

at the expense of law enforcement. That is the context in which the 

phrase that Mr. Twist quoted is presented. 

The flexibility problem, which we’re all concerned with—and I 

worked with Mr. Twist when I was at the Department of Justice 

to try and get this right. I think we had it actually in some ways 

better in S.J. Res. 3. But here’s the problem. There is a difference 

between an exception and a restriction. If you take the example of 

reasonable notice of a guilty plea, if you say that we’re going to 

find a way not to provide notice at all, that’s not providing ‘‘reasonable notice’’. It’s just not providing notice. It’s not a restriction; it’s 

an exception. 

If we have an ability to provide exceptions, that’s fine. But the 

amendment, as it’s drafted, says the right shall not be denied and 

may only be restricted in certain circumstances. So my concern is 

that courts would read that, and also read the history of this 

amendment as it has progressed from version to version, and say 

that where we’re trying to not give notice because of safety concerns, we can’t do it. It isn’t allowed under the wording of this 

amendment. 

The prison context, again it’s partly a question of how the language has changed from one draft to another. The previous draft 

said— 

Senator KENNEDY. The point is, this isn’t a drafting issue or 

question. This is a broader kind of issue. I mean, is this a technical 

kind of question that can be worked on through with the drafting? 

I mean, many of the points talked about is sort of a change in the 

culture in terms of protecting the rights, and the only way that 

we’re really going to change that in the criminal justice system, 

which has grown over this period of years, is if you’re going to have 

a constitutional amendment. I don’t want to be putting words in, 

but you mentioned some of these things, that this is the way it’s 

going to have to be done in order to give more life to these victims 

and this is the only way and it can’t be done by statute. Then he 

indicated that you just don’t understand this as a prosecutor. I 

want to kind of get your reaction and response to that. I personally 

don’t agree with it, but I want to hear your position on it. 

Mr. ORENSTEIN. I don’t agree, in a couple of ways. First, in terms 

of the culture, the culture is changing. It has changed a lot over 

the past 20 years, and it needs to continue changing. 

My own personal experience is that I’ve handled a murder case 

where I did not adequately consult with the victims—and I’ve regretted it for over a decade since. I had a real education in working 

on the Oklahoma City bombing case, where I saw not only the necessity of working with victims, but the value to the case of doing 

so. 

37

I think our culture has changed a lot. One way it has changed 

is in the arena of death penalty prosecutions, where victims now 

do have a right to speak at capital sentencing proceedings. Obviously, there are limits that the due process clause still puts on it, 

including limits on opining about the sentence. But even speaking 

at a sentencing hearing at all, just giving factual information about 

the impact of the crime, that used to be considered unlawful. States 

passed laws to change it and aggressively litigated it, and those 

laws worked. The Supreme Court endorsed those laws in Payne vs. 

Tennessee 10 years ago. The culture is changing, and there are 

ways to change the culture through statutes, through aggressive 

advocacy, and through better prosecution. 

As I said in my prepared testimony, I think there are steps that 

this body has not yet tried. A spending-based statute that will encourage every State to adopt this uniform floor of victims’ rights 

hasn’t been tried. I think it could work. I think it would be a 

shame not to try it. 

Senator KENNEDY. You believe that ought to be tried before a 

constitutional amendment? 

Mr. ORENSTEIN. Well, certainly this goes back to my technical 

concerns. Mr. Twist and I, or Mr. Dinh and I, can argue back and 

forth over what the right interpretation is. I hope I’m wrong, but 

I don’t know, and neither does anyone else here. If I turn out to 

be right, and it’s a statute we’re talking about, we can fix it. If it’s 

a constitutional amendment, we can’t. 

Senator KENNEDY. This is, I guess, Judge Rehnquist’s position. 

Let me thank all the witnesses. Senator Kyl and others have 

commented that we are very mindful of these incredible losses that 

you’ve experienced. We know how difficult it is in listening to the 

witnesses. And to Miss Perry and Mr. Lynn, we are grateful to you 

for your willingness to be here and speak on this issue. It is incredibly difficult and we’re thankful. 

I just wanted to ask Mrs. Perry about—I got in here late because 

we were over at the Armed Services Committee earlier and I apologize for being late for this meeting. It is certainly an impressive life 

that your son had led, and the enormously impressive way in 

which he gave his last full measure to try and save others. It’s an 

incredible act of heroism in the highest order of the Judao–Christian definition of a life that’s well led. 

He had this particular interest in terms of, I guess, civil rights 

and civil liberties through his pro bono services as a lawyer. Could 

you talk just a moment about that? Is this something that was very 

special to him? 

Mrs. PERRY. I would just mention, also, that unfortunately you 

were not here for the testimony of the other two women, which was 

very compelling. 

John was—I’m his mother, so forgive me—he was an exceptional 

person. We said he didn’t sleep and he kept his life busy from one 

minute to the other, and he did fit in all kinds of activities, including assisting friends and organizations who had legal questions. He 

enjoyed very much using his legal knowledge. After his death, even 

months later, we were getting telephone calls from people whom he 

had represented pro bono, who didn’t even know he was the person 

involved. They would ask, ‘‘Is this the John Perry we heard about?’’ 

38

A woman he met by chance at a railroad station, who needed 

help, an actress who was having John represent her in some kind 

of a problem. A couple from Germany who had been here a few 

years, and years ago he helped them with a landlord/tenant case. 

He just enjoyed life to the fullest. He enjoyed showing people how 

they could help themselves, and we rejoice in that. 

He also was in many organizations, and he spoke out for all people, on all topics, and was very open to different ideas. 

Now, I don’t want to get off into John too much, even though I 

could talk for 20 minutes and you all would be bored. But I was 

struck by something that Mrs. Feinstein reported, that victims 

used to have the kind of rights that we think we’re talking about 

today, until 1850. I would say that even after 1850, victims or victims’ friends took these rights, because we have a whole history in 

our country of frontier justice and of lynchings, where there was no 

due process. So while we may be negligent in really assisting the 

families of victims today, we don’t want to go back to the point 

where we, as victims, and our friends, are allowed to take vengeance on someone who has not been thoroughly given their rights 

in court. It’s a very dangerous point. 

So I think my son, John, with all his interest in the law, and in 

acting, and friends and people, would want to make sure that we 

do keep close to the system we have put in place, even while recognizing the system in some places fails because we are humans. 

Maybe in Arizona they failed, and maybe in Minneapolis and in 

California, that individual courts and individual judges and prosecutors have not been sensitive. But the system, as a whole, is 

much better than it was when we used to not have these legal people in place to take care of us. 

I don’t know if I’ve answered your question. 

Senator KENNEDY. Very good. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. 

I wanted to point out that the first constitutional amendment 

giving victims any rights was California’s in 1982. On my side of 

the aisle, there were not a lot of people in San Francisco supportive 

of it. I was mayor at the time and I was one of the few that supported it—party because of a specific case that pointed out what is 

lacking in the system today. 

Well, the California law passed overwhelmingly, and none of the 

negatives came true. Other States then went out and adopted constitutional amendments, but they all did it differently. That’s the 

problem. That’s one of the reasons, Mr. Orenstein, I don’t think 

giving money to a State and saying come up with a basic uniform 

floor is going to work. I don’t know any issue where that has actually worked, where every State has done the same kind of thing. 

I worked in a prison for 5 years, so I know a little bit about what 

prison life is like. I don’t see how the amendment creates a problem 

for any prison. I want to quickly read the limited rights that we’re 

giving an individual: ‘‘A victim of a violent crime shall have the 

right to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime, and of any release or escape of the accused.’’ 

That’s not too difficult. 

The victim shall also have ‘‘The rights not to be excluded from 

such public proceeding and reasonably to be heard at public reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Nov 19, 2003 Jkt 088328 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89328.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
39

lease, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and the 

right to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim’s safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely 

claims to restitution from the offender. 

Then it goes on right then and there and says, ‘‘These rights 

shall not be restricted except when and to the degree dictated by 

a substantial interest in public safety or the administration of 

criminal justice, or by compelling necessity.’’ 

So essentially what we’re trying to do is say, for example, that, 

if you’re attacked by somebody, and you testify against them, and 

they do jail time or prison time, that you have a basic constitutional right to know when they’re released so that you can protect 

yourself. I think most Americans would agree with that, and also 

that, if you are a crime victim, you have a basic right to know 

when a trial is going to take place, and the right not to be excluded 

if you can present yourself, and the right to make an impact statement, or the right to be present at any public proceeding that involves the perpetrator. 

I don’t think those are unreasonable rights. I don’t think they’ll 

disturb defendants’ rights or sensitive criminal proceedings. I sat 

on a term-setting and paroling authority. That’s how I was in prison. We set sentences under California’s indeterminate sentence 

law. We granted paroles. Those hearings were not public. I don’t 

know whether they are today, but not at the time, so they wouldn’t 

have been affected. 

The reason you saw the Simpson family and the Goldman family 

in court was because of the 1982 California constitutional amendment. I have been deeply perplexed as to why people really feel 

this will influence the administration of criminal justice. I think 

deep down I know. I think there are defense attorneys that don’t 

want a paralyzed victim in the courtroom, that don’t want grieving 

small children in the courtroom. But you know what? As you sow, 

so shall you reap. I think you do not see a defendant the way he 

or she was when he or she committed the crime. They’re all 

cleaned up, all spruced up, all shaven, many times wearing a suit 

and tie. 

So if you’re going to look at the fair administration of criminal 

justice—and I spent a lot of my time in this arena—you need to 

be fair to both sides. I think providing these limited rights to a victim really equalizes the scale of justice. 

I have a little brochure that I hand out to people. It’s got a scale 

of justice. On one side are all the rights granted by the Constitution to the accused, and on the other, there is nothing for the victim. So now amendments have been adopted in 33 States. And in 

every state campaign, people have alleged the same problems. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Twist, some opponents have claimed 

that this amendment is going to cause staggering costs. Now, you 

helped draft the amendment in Arizona, and I think you were instrumental in getting it passed. What kinds of costs has Arizona 

encountered in implementing the amendment? 

Mr. TWIST. Senator, the costs are minimal. If you think through 

the rights that you just enumerated, the only right that has any 

sort of cost attached to it is the right to receive notice. There is a 

cost associated with providing of the notice. I would resort back to 

40

the testimony of county attorney Richard Romley, who several 

years ago submitted his statement to the record in hearings on this 

amendment, and county attorney Barbara LaWall, who testified before the Committee, that the costs to their offices in providing notice have been minimal. It’s basically phone calls and letters. And 

that was several years ago. Now the technology has grown, and the 

capacity to provide notice through computerized systems that make 

it easier for victims to access, either on-line or over telephone lines, 

that require fewer people to actually be providing the notice. 

There’s the bind system that was first established in Tennessee 

that’s now spread around the country, a computerized system, a 

telephone-based system, for providing notice of hearings. 

But that’s it. When you think about the other things, the right 

to not be excluded from the courtroom does not have a cost. The 

right to be heard at various proceedings that are already scheduled, and already held in open court, does not have a cost with it. 

With all due respect to Senator Leahy’s earlier comment, this 

isn’t about the money. This is about Mr. Lynn’s right to offer his 

opinion to a proceeding that is already being held, his opinion that, 

in his case, he wanted life imprisonment and not the death penalty. 

Or in Mrs. Campbell’s case, to say I just want to have a right to 

sit in the courtroom as the defendant’s family has a right to sit in 

the courtroom. There’s no cost associated with that. So it’s been 

minimal, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, similar rights already exist in 33 

States, some for as long as 20 years. Can anyone on the panel provide any evidence that the abuses that have been mentioned have 

occurred in these States? Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CAMPBELL. I’ve been dying to say a little bit more. First of 

all, I would like to thank our Orange County Congressman for 

being here to support me, Ed Royce. Thank you, Ed. 

Yeah, I can give you a lot of instances. It seems like my profession has been to stay in the courtroom. When you talk about staggering costs, to keep me in a courtroom for 21 straight years is a 

staggering cost, not only emotionally to my family, but every time 

we go into the courtroom and t there’s another delay, that’s a huge 

cost. That’s happening all across the country continually. 

I would like to give everybody here— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But that’s not because of any constitutional 

amendment. To be fair, what I’m saying is—you’re not really responding to my question. 

Mrs. CAMPBELL. Okay. Let me give you the direct question. 

A couple of months ago our district attorney came up to me and 

told me that I was going to be excluded in the courtroom for the 

coming trial. I explained to him that I was not going to be excluded, so there may be a little—I asked him, I said are you going 

to make me a witness, and he said no. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Under California law, you have the right to 

be there. 

Mrs. CAMPBELL. Of course, I do. But— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. They cannot keep you out. 

Mrs. CAMPBELL. That was just a few months ago. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My question was a little different. 

Mrs. CAMPBELL. I’m sorry. 

41

Senator FEINSTEIN. The objection to our proposed constitutional 

amendment has always been that there would be certain abuses, 

either abuses that disadvantage the defendant, that would cost the 

State, That would prevent the prosecutor from giving timely notice, 

these kinds of things. And yet, there is no evidence of these abuses 

having surfaced in any of the States. Instead, the abuse has been 

in not carrying it out, not carrying out a State constitutional 

amendment for one reason or another. 

What I would like to ask everybody is whether you have any indication where the constitutional amendment of a State has been 

abused or has cost the State substantial additional funds. I would 

certainly like to have that evidence. 

I see Senator Feingold is here and I will yield you some time. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. It’s an outstanding hearing and I have a lot of other things 

going on today, like other Senators, but I feel this is so important 

that this is the third time I have come back. I wish I could have 

heard all the testimony. 

I want Mr. Lynn to know that, although we have some disagreements about the merits of this, it was some of the most powerful 

testimony I have ever heard at a hearing. So I thank everyone for 

being here. 

This is a very, very tough subject that has to be addressed seriously, and I think you’ve done a wonderful job today of helping this 

issue come forward. 

Let me ask some questions. Mr. Orenstein, as someone who has 

prosecuted some of the most difficult cases, like the Oklahoma 

bombing and organized crime, can you discuss how this proposed 

amendment would affect a prosecutor’s ability to make the necessary and independent decisions that are in the best interest of 

a prosecution? As an example, what are the possible ramifications 

of this amendment when there are multiple crime victims for a particular incident, who each have competing interests and objectives, 

like wanting to watch and possibly testify at a trial? 

Mr. ORENSTEIN. Well, again, the multiple victim cases are particularly difficult and they particularly call for flexibility in the system. Some of these problems are problems of drafting and the inability to predict how courts are going to interpret certain words, 

which is why we should proceed very carefully before enshrining 

certain words in the Constitution, because we don’t know how they 

will play out. 

In the mass victim case, it is impractical for everyone to be in 

the courtroom. You can adapt to that with closed-circuit TV. It’s 

impractical for everyone who wants to be heard to speak at a given 

hearing. 

Now, my experience is that victims in the Oklahoma City case 

were more than willing to accommodate the practical needs of situations like that, as long as they’re kept in the loop, as long as 

they’re consulted. 

There are two problems. One is where you have one or two holdouts who just don’t want to give up their rights, and a judge would 

say look, it’s reasonable to have limitations here. We can’t have everybody speak. If the rights belong to the individual and can’t be 

denied but only restricted, well, you can’t keep that individual from 

42

speaking. So again, there could be problems with—it’s a drafting 

issue. 

The other problem is where the victim doesn’t want to be reasonable. This is somebody who’s in prison, who has been assaulted by 

another prisoner and wants to create problems for the court system. Again, you need to have the right kind of flexibility. My concern is very much down in the weeds of how the Constitution 

would play out in that situation. 

Senator FEINGOLD. You’re getting at this, obviously, but is this 

a problem that demands a constitutional amendment, or in many 

cases isn’t this really an issue of providing training and resources 

to prosecutors’ offices to ensure that prosecutors will pick up the 

phone and do what’s asked of them, like notifying victims of court 

dates, considering issues involving victims’ safety, allowing them to 

submit victim impact statements at sentencing hearings, informing 

victims of release dates for offenders? 

Mr. ORENSTEIN. Very often it isn’t. One thing that’s really troubling for me as a former prosecutor, in hearing some of the awful 

stories that I’ve heard at this hearing and at others on this issue, 

is needless slights to victims and— 

Senator FEINGOLD. Needless—what did you say? 

Mr. ORENSTEIN. Needless slights to victims, needless harms to 

them, and not only needless, but contrary to the laws of their 

State. This is a problem of changing the culture. Neither a statute 

nor constitutional amendment will change somebody’s heart or 

change a culture. We need experience, we need training. I don’t 

think a constitutional amendment will be more or less effective in 

solving the kinds of problems of the prosecutor who heartlessly 

says we don’t need to consult the victim, we don’t need to tell you, 

you just won’t understand. That should never be the case. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Let me ask Miss Perry to sort of continue 

this. I want to underscore a point that was illustrated by the testimony we’ve heard, that there is not a single victim’s voice in the 

question of a constitutional amendment. Some do support statutory 

relief, while others support a constitutional amendment. Whether 

we enact a constitutional amendment or a statute, in the end prosecutors and judges must be willing to and have the resources and 

training to enforce the law for victims’ rights to even stand a 

chance of being effective. 

I would ask you, Mrs. Perry, what steps do you think we should 

be considering in Congress to ensure that victims have the services 

and access to the criminal justice system that they need? 

Mrs. PERRY. Someone asked earlier about the cost, and as I see 

it, the victim’s right—If the victims’ rights amendment does pass, 

it still does not meet the needs that I feel our family benefited 

from, and that these other victims’ families have not experienced. 

That is the emotional and financial support that States or the Federal Government should make available to the victims. It increases 

their pain when they run out of money, just to pay to go back and 

forth to the various trials or hearings. It increases their pain if the 

person who is the victim and leaves the family is the breadwinner 

and they no longer have an income, they no longer have health insurance. You in Congress I would hope someday you really face the 

43

fact that we have 41 million people without health insurance in 

this country. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Amen on that. 

Mrs. PERRY. This gets exacerbated every time someone is murdered and that person is responsible for a family’s health and 

maintenance. I think these things would be of great assistance to 

families who are suffering after they have been assaulted by a person who is now accused and in court. Then they would have the 

resources to be able to keep up with what’s going on with the victims’ case in court, as long as the local people follow what’s already 

on the books. 

So I would really encourage that that would be of great help. We 

benefitted from it, and these victims here have not benefitted from 

it, and they’ve had to find money out of their own pockets. And our 

benefits are not from what Congress did, because I haven’t gotten 

around to victims’ compensation, which would just cause a lot of 

dissention. 

I am part of the Twin Tower Fund, representing police officer 

families and firefighter families, and with all due respect, what you 

did under a lot of pressure during a very difficult time in our history, was set up a very complicated victims’ compensation fund, 

where certain victims are worth millions of dollars and other victims are worth $250,000 or $100,000. It is very unequal and has 

caused a lot of bitter feelings, especially among the uniformed personnel since most of those officers were earning relatively modest 

incomes compared to employees on the top floors of the World 

Trade Center who were earning $250,000 to $500,000 a year. 

Therefore, they were more valuable than my son. You know, you 

get the picture. There’s a lot of problems there. 

If you could spend the time, rather than 7 years debating on how 

you can get the exact wording that lawyers understand for a victims’ rights amendment, which even seems the lawyers don’t always understand and has a lot of loopholes where you can waive 

rights here and enforce them there, just let’s help everybody. Let’s 

help these victims, give them the tools to put their lives back together, and you know, see if you can encourage the States to do 

what has to be done. In the case of Federal crimes, then the Federal Government should help. 

I don’t know if that—I can’t write the law for you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I thank you. 

Madam Chair, it is good to see you as chair again. 

[Laughter.] 

I take it my time has elapsed. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think so. 

I would like to thank everybody for attending, regardless of what 

side of this issue you are on. It is clearly something that has 

caught national attention and people feel strongly about. The testimony was compelling, it was cogent, it was forthright, and on behalf of Senator Kyl, I thank everybody. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m, the Committee adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

44


89328.001
45


89328.002
46


89328.003
47


89328.004
48


89328.005
49


89328.006
50


89328.007
51


89328.008
52


89328.009
53


89328.010
54


89328.011
55


89328.012
56


89328.013
57


89328.014
58


89328.015
59


89328.016
60


89328.017
61


89328.018
62


89328.019
63


89328.020
64


89328.021
65


89328.022
66


89328.023
67


89328.024
68


89328.025
69


89328.026
70


89328.027
71


89328.028
72


89328.029
73


89328.030
74


89328.031
75


89328.032
76


89328.033
77


89328.034
78


89328.035
79


89328.036
80


89328.037
81


89328.038
82


89328.039
83


89328.040
84


89328.041
85


89328.042
86


89328.043
87


89328.044
88


89328.045
89


89328.046
90


89328.047
91


89328.048
92


89328.049
93


89328.050
94


89328.051
95


89328.052
96


89328.053
97


89328.054
98


89328.055
99


89328.056
100


89328.057
101


89328.058
102


89328.059
103


89328.060
104


89328.061
105


89328.062
106


89328.063
107


89328.064
108


89328.065
109


89328.066
110


89328.067
111


89328.068
112


89328.069
113


89328.070
114


89328.071
115


89328.072
116


89328.073
117


89328.074
118


89328.075
119


89328.076
120


89328.077
121


89328.078
122


89328.079
123


89328.080
124


89328.081
125


89328.082
126


89328.083
127


89328.084
128


89328.085
129


89328.086
130


89328.087
131


89328.088
132


89328.089
133


89328.090
134


89328.091
135


89328.092
136


89328.093
137


89328.094
138


89328.095
139


89328.096
140


89328.097
141


89328.098
142


89328.099
143


89328.100
144


89328.101
145


89328.102
146


89328.103
147


89328.104
148


89328.105
149


89328.106
150


89328.107
151


89328.108
152


89328.109
153


89328.110
154


89328.111
155


89328.112
156


89328.113
157


89328.114
158


89328.115
159


89328.116
160


89328.117
161


89328.118
162


89328.119
163


89328.120
164


89328.121
165


89328.122
166


89328.123
167


89328.124
168


89328.125
169


89328.126
170


89328.127
171


89328.128
172


89328.129
173


89328.130
174


89328.131
175


89328.132
176


89328.133
177


89328.134
178


89328.135
179


89328.136
180


89328.137
181


89328.138
182


89328.139
183


89328.140
184


89328.141
185


89328.142
186


89328.143
187


89328.144
188


89328.145
189


89328.146
190


89328.147
191


89328.148
192


89328.149
193


89328.150
194


89328.151
195


89328.152
196


89328.153
197


89328.154
198


89328.155
199


89328.156
200


89328.157
201


89328.158
202


89328.159
203


89328.160
204


89328.161
205


89328.162
206


89328.163
207


89328.164
208


89328.165
209


89328.166
210


89328.167
211


89328.168
212


89328.169
213


89328.170
214


89328.171
215


89328.172
216


89328.173
217


89328.174
218


89328.175
219


89328.176
220


89328.177
221


89328.178
222


89328.179
223


89328.180
224


89328.181
225


89328.182
226


89328.183
227


89328.184
228


89328.185
229


89328.186
230


89328.187
231


89328.188
232


89328.189
233


89328.190
234


89328.191
235


89328.192
236


89328.193
237


89328.194
238


89328.195
239


89328.196
240


89328.197
241


89328.198
242


89328.199
243


89328.200
244


89328.201
245


89328.202
246


89328.203
247


89328.204
248


89328.205
249


89328.206
250


89328.207
251


89328.208
252


89328.209
253


89328.210
254


89328.211
255


89328.212
256


89328.213
257


89328.214
258


89328.215
259


89328.216
260


89328.217
261


89328.218
262


89328.219
263


89328.220
264


89328.221
265


89328.222
266


89328.223
267


89328.224
268


89328.225
269


89328.226
270


89328.227
271


89328.228
272


89328.229
273


89328.230
274


89328.231
275


89328.232
276


89328.233
277


89328.234
278


89328.235
279


89328.236
280


89328.237
281


89328.238
282


89328.239
283


89328.240
284


89328.241
285


89328.242
286


89328.243
287


89328.244
288


89328.245
289


89328.246
290


89328.247
291


89328.248
292


89328.249
293

Æ


89328.250