Crime Victims' Rights Act: Increasing Victim Awareness and Clarifying Applicability to the District of Columbia Will Improve Implementation of the Act
Published: 2009-09-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: On October 30, 2004, the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was enacted, establishing eight rights for federal crime victims and two mechanisms to enforce those rights. The legislation also directed GAO to evaluate the implementation of the CVRA. To address this mandate, GAO reviewed, among other things: (1) efforts made to implement the CVRA, (2) mechanisms in place to ensure adherence to the CVRA, (3) key issues that have arisen in the interpretation of the CVRA by the federal courts, and (4) perspectives of criminal justice system participants on the CVRA. This testimony is based on GAO's December 2008 report on CVRA, where GAO reviewed guidance and conducted surveys and interviews with criminal justice system participants. GAO cannot generalize its crime victim survey results due to a low response rate. In September 2009, GAO obtained updated information on victim's efforts to enforce their rights.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: To implement the CVRA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the federal judiciary have, among other things, revised internal guidelines, trained DOJ staff and judges, provided victims with emergency, temporary housing to protect them, and proactively asked victims if they would like to speak in court. DOJ and the courts have also implemented two mechanisms to ensure adherence to the CVRA, including processes for victims to submit complaints against DOJ employees and assert their rights in court; however, the majority of victims who responded to GAO's survey said they were not aware of these mechanisms. If victims are not aware of these enforcement mechanisms, they will not be effective at helping to ensure victims are afforded their rights. GAO also found that DOJ's complaint investigation process lacked independence, impeding impartiality. In July 2009, in response to our recommendation, DOJ revised its victim complaint investigation process such that if investigators who are located in the same office with the subject of the investigation believe that their review of the complaint could bias the investigation or give the appearance of this, they are instructed to inform a designated official at DOJ headquarters. This official may suggest that the complaint be investigated by another DOJ office. Several key issues have arisen that require the courts to interpret various provisions of the law, including (1) when in the criminal justice process CVRA rights apply, (2) what it means for a victim to be "reasonably heard" in court, and (3) what legal standard should be used to review victim appeals of district court decisions. While judicial interpretation of various aspects of a law typically occurs after new legislation is enacted, DOJ and court officials believe that one CVRA issue may benefit from a change to the law itself. The CVRA is not explicit about whether the law applies to victims of local offenses prosecuted in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Without clarification on this issue, judges in this court may continue to differ in whether they apply the CVRA in their cases. As to the overall impacts of the CVRA, the victims as well as the DOJ and judicial officials GAO interviewed had mixed perceptions. Most maintained that CVRA has improved victim treatment. For example, 72 percent of the victim-witness professionals--individuals who are responsible for providing services to crime victims and witnesses--who responded to GAO's survey perceived that the CVRA has resulted in at least some increase in victim attendance at court proceedings. Other officials maintained that the federal government and the courts were already treating victims well prior to the act. Victims responding to GAO's survey also reported mixed views on their knowledge of, and satisfaction with, the provision of various rights. For example, 141 of the 167 victims who responded to GAO's survey question regarding participation in the judicial process reported that they did not attend any of the proceedings related to their cases, primarily because the location of the court was too far to travel or they were not interested in attending.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our analysis of the efforts made  by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the federal judiciary to implement  the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and  Nila Lynn Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which was enacted on  October 30, 2004. The CVRA defines a crime victim as “a person directly  and proximately harmed as a result of a federal offense or an offense in  the District of Columbia.” The Act established eight rights for such  victims, including, among others, the right to be notified of any public  court proceeding, the right not to be excluded from such proceedings, and  the right to be heard at certain of these public court proceedings related to  the crime. The law requires officers and employees of DOJ, which  includes, investigative agents, prosecutors, and victim-witness  professionals—individuals who are responsible for providing services to  crime victims and witnesses—to make their best efforts to see that crime  victims are notified of and accorded their rights under the CVRA. Since  most federal crimes—that is, crimes that violate a federal statute—are  prosecuted by DOJ’s U.S. Attorneys Offices (USAO), staff in these offices  have primary responsibility for assisting crime victims during the  prosecution phase of a case. The federal courts also have responsibilities  for ensuring that crime victims are afforded their CVRA rights, such as by  generally not excluding victims from certain public court proceedings.
The CVRA also established mechanisms to enforce crime victims’ rights.  Specifically, to ensure that DOJ employees are complying with CVRA  requirements, the Act directs DOJ to establish a process for receiving and  investigating victim-related complaints against DOJ employees, and to  require training or impose disciplinary sanctions on any DOJ employees  who fail to comply with federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime  victims. The CVRA also enables victims to assert their rights in district  court by filing a motion for relief —a formal request made to a judge for  an order or ruling—with the district court regarding their rights. If the  district court denies victims the relief they are seeking—such as a request  that the judge allow the victim to be heard at a court proceeding—the  victim can petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus, in which  case the court of appeals may instruct the district court to grant the victim  the relief sought.
We have assessed implementation of the CVRA in response to sec. 104(b)  of the Act, which directed GAO to evaluate the “effect and efficacy of the  implementation of the  on the treatment of crime victims in the  federal system.” We issued a report on the results of that review on  December 15, 2008.  My statement today summarizes most of the findings  in our report and addresses the following questions: (1) What efforts have  been made to implement the CVRA, what factors have affected these  implementation efforts, and how have these factors been addressed? (2)  What mechanisms are in place to ensure adherence to the CVRA, and how  well are these mechanisms working? (3) What are the key issues that have  arisen as courts interpret and apply the CVRA in cases? (4) What are the  perspectives of various participants in the federal criminal justice system  regarding the effect and efficacy of CVRA implementation? Our December  2008 report also includes a discussion of the methods DOJ uses to monitor  performance regarding the provision of the CVRA.
To address these questions, we reviewed CVRA guidance issued by DOJ  and the federal judiciary, victim complaints submitted to DOJ, and federal  court rulings. We also conducted surveys and interviews of crime victims  and victim-witness professionals, and interviews with investigative agents,  prosecutors, defense attorneys, and federal judges. We cannot generalize  the results of the crime victim survey due to a low response rate, nor can  we generalize the results of the interviews since we used a nonprobability  sampling method to select the locations we visited to conduct these  interviews. However, the survey results and interviews provided us with  information on the perspectives of various participants in the criminal  justice system about the CVRA. We conducted our audit work from May  2007 to December 2008. In September 2009, for the purposes of this  testimony, we obtained updates to certain data we included in our report,  such as the number of victim complaints submitted to DOJ and the  number of times CVRA rights were asserted in federal court. We  conducted our audit work in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Appendix I of our December 2008 report  contains a detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: The Evolution of Crime Victims’ Rights
paragraphs: Since 1982, the federal government has passed a number of laws that  address the role of the crime victim in the criminal justice system,  including the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Victims of Crime  Act of 1984, Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Violent Crime  Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Mandatory Victims Restitution  Act of 1996, Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and Crime Victims’  Rights Act of 2004.
Several of these statutes provided crime victims with rights, but they also  directed federal officials to provide victims with various services, such as  notification of certain public court proceedings. In particular, the Victims’  Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 identified crime victims’ rights,  delineating seven such rights and requiring federal officials to make their  best efforts to see that crime victims are accorded these rights. The 1990  law also included a separate provision, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 10607, that  requires federal officials to identify crime victims and provide them  information about their cases and about services that may be available to  them. For example, the law requires officials to inform victims of a place  where they may receive emergency medical and social services, to inform  victims of programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment,  and other support to the victim, and to assist victims in contacting persons  who can provide such services.
On October 30, 2004, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, as a component of the  Justice for All Act, was signed into law. The CVRA left in place 42 U.S.C. §  10607—the provision requiring federal officials to inform victims about  their cases and about services available to them—but the CVRA modified  the provision from the 1990 law regarding crime victims’ rights and  identified eight rights for federal crime victims, some of which were  similar to the rights from the 1990 law and others of which were new. The  CVRA provided that crime victims have the following rights:  the right to be reasonably protected from the accused;  the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court  proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release  or escape of the accused;  the right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless  the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that  testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard  other testimony at that proceeding;  the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district  court involving the release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding;  the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the  case;  the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law;  the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and  the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s  dignity and privacy.
section_title: Mechanisms for Crime Victims to Assert Their Rights
paragraphs: The CVRA also established two mechanisms to ensure adherence to  victims’ rights under the law, neither of which had been available under  previous statutes. Specifically, to ensure that DOJ employees are  complying with CVRA requirements, the law directed DOJ to designate an  administrative authority to receive and investigate complaints relating to  the provision or violation of crime victims’ rights. To comply with this  provision in the statute, DOJ issued regulations creating the Victims’  Rights Ombudsman. The VRO is a position within the Executive Office of  United States Attorneys—the DOJ division responsible for facilitating  coordination between USAOs, evaluating USAO performance, and  providing general legal interpretations and opinions to USAOs, among  other things. Federal crime victims may submit written complaints to the  designated point of contact for the DOJ division that is the subject of the  complaint, who then investigates the complaint and reports the results of  the investigation to the VRO. Victims may also submit complaints directly  to the VRO. If the VRO finds that an employee failed to afford a CVRA right  to a victim, the VRO must require that employee to undergo training on  victims’ rights. If based on an investigation the VRO determines that an  employee willfully and wantonly failed to provide a victim with a CVRA  right, the VRO must recommend a range of disciplinary sanctions to the  official authorized to take action on disciplinary matters for the relevant  office. The CVRA does not require DOJ employees to provide relief to  victims whose rights have been violated, but the VRO guidelines do require  investigators, to the best of their ability, to resolve complaints to the  victims’ satisfaction.
The CVRA also enables victims to assert their rights in district court by  filing a motion—which they can do either verbally or per a written  request—with the court. Unlike the complaint process, this mechanism  allows victims to assert their rights and seek relief from the court, and can  be employed not only when victims believe that a DOJ employee violated  their rights, but when they have general concerns regarding the provision  of their rights. If the district court denies the victim’s request regarding the  provision of CVRA rights—such as a request to be heard at a hearing—the  victim can petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. Thus, if  the court of appeals grants the victim’s petition, it may direct the district  court to take actions to afford CVRA rights to the victim. Petitions for  writs of mandamus can be filed at any point in the case.
section_title: Authorization of Funding to Support CVRA Implementation
paragraphs: The CVRA authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.  However, it is unclear whether and exactly how much of this funding was  appropriated because funds that may have been appropriated under the  CVRA were likely appropriated in a lump sum with funds for other victim  assistance and grant programs. The authorized amounts, years, and  purposes are listed in table 1.
section_title: Multiple Efforts Have Been Made to Implement the CVRA, and DOJ and Federal Courts Have Taken Actions to Address Various Factors that Have Presented Challenges for Affording Crime Victims Their Rights
paragraphs: DOJ and the federal judiciary have made various efforts to implement the  CVRA—from revising internal guidelines and developing training materials  for DOJ staff and judges to providing victims with emergency, temporary  housing in some cases to protect them from the accused offender and  proactively asking victims if they would like to speak in court.  Additionally, DOJ and the federal judiciary have taken actions to address  four factors that have affected CVRA implementation, including the  characteristics of certain cases, the increased workload of some USAO  staff, the scheduling of court proceedings, and diverging interests between  the prosecution and victims.
First, the characteristics of certain cases, such as the number of victims  involved and the location of the victims, make it difficult to afford victims  certain CVRA rights. For instance, USAO staff stated that it can be difficult  to provide timely notification of court proceedings to victims located on  Indian reservations because the victims may not have access to a mailbox,  a telephone, or the Internet. To address this challenge, victim-witness  personnel said that they have driven to Indian reservations to personally  inform victims of upcoming court proceedings.
Second, due to CVRA requirements, particularly notification requirements,  USAO victim-witness staff face an increased workload—about 45 percent  of staff who responded to our survey reported working an average of  about 6 additional hours per week in order to meet CVRA requirements.  DOJ has made efforts to address this issue by providing funding to 41 of  the 93 USAOs to hire contractors to assist with clerical duties related to  victim notification.
Third, inherent characteristics of the criminal justice process, such as the  short period of time over which pretrial proceedings are scheduled and  take place, make it difficult to provide timely notice to crime victims and  afford them their right to be heard. For example, according to the  investigative agents, USAO staff, and one magistrate judge with whom we  met, a detention hearing—which is a judicial proceeding used to  determine whether a defendant should remain in custody before her or his  trial—typically takes place within a few days of an arrest (as generally  required by federal law), and in certain situations, can occur within hours  of an arrest. When faced with this challenge, USAO victim-witness  personnel said that they have notified victims of court proceedings by  telephone rather than mail, which may not arrive in enough time to enable  the victim to attend the proceeding.
Fourth, diverging interests between the prosecution and victims may  affect the way in which the government affords victims their CVRA rights.  For instance, according to DOJ, it is not always in the interest of a  successful prosecution for victims to be notified of and attend a plea  hearing for a cooperating defendant who agrees to testify against or  provide information about other defendants in the case in exchange for a  lesser sentence. The concern is that public knowledge of the defendant’s  cooperation could compromise the investigation, as well as bring harm to  the defendant and others. DOJ officials stated that this issue occurs  frequently in gang-related prosecutions, where, for instance, the victim is a  member of the defendant’s rival gang. DOJ’s efforts to address this issue  include requesting that the court close plea agreement proceedings— which may prevent the victim from attending such proceedings since  victims’ right not to be excluded only applies to public court  proceedings—and proposing legislation to revise the CVRA to allow for an  exception to victims’ notification rights in these instances.
section_title: Complaint Process and Victims’ Ability to File Motions Are Intended to Ensure Adherence to CVRA, but Some Victims Are Not Aware of These Enforcement Mechanisms and the Complaint Process Could Be Restructured to Ensure Independence
subsections: section_title: Many Victims Who Responded to Our Survey Reported Not Being Aware of Their Ability to File Complaints Related to Their CVRA Rights, and the Structure of the Complaint Process Could Impede Impartiality
paragraphs: To enforce the provisions of the CVRA, the act established two  mechanisms to help victims ensure that their rights are granted. These  mechanisms include processes by which victims can submit complaints  against DOJ employees whom they believe violated their rights and file  motions in court related to their rights. However, many of the victims who  responded to our survey reported that they were not aware of these  enforcement mechanisms. Of the more than 1.1 million federal crime  victims who, as of September 4, 2009, were identified in DOJ’s Victim  Notification System as having active cases, the Victims’ Rights  Ombudsman—DOJ’s designated authority to receive and investigate  federal crime victim complaints regarding employee compliance to the  CVRA—received 259 written complaints from December 2005 through  August 2009. The VRO closed 235 complaints following a preliminary  investigation, primarily because the complaints were related to a state or  local matter as opposed to a federal matter or it was determined that the  individual was not a federal crime victim. Lastly, the VRO determined that  of the 19 complaints that warranted further investigation, in no instance  did a DOJ employee or office fail to comply with the provisions of the law  pertaining to the treatment of these federal crime victims. We did not  make a judgment on the reasonableness of the VRO’s rationale for  dismissing these complaints because we did not conduct an independent  investigation of each complaint.
Several contributing factors most likely explain the low number of  complaints filed by federal crime victims against DOJ employees. First,  DOJ officials believe few victims have filed complaints because victims are  generally satisfied with DOJ’s efforts to afford them their rights. Second,  USAO officials we spoke with have made efforts to resolve complaints  directly before they reached a point where a victim would file a complaint  with the VRO. Third, victims reported a lack of awareness about the  complaint process itself. Specifically, 129 of the 235 victims who  responded to our survey question regarding the complaint process  reported that they were not aware of it, and 51 did not recall whether they  were aware. USAOs have been directed to take reasonable steps to  provide notice to victims of the complaint process, and they generally do  so through a brochure provided to victims at the beginning of the case.  However, DOJ has opportunities to enhance victim awareness of the  complaint process, such as by making greater use of office Web sites to  publicize the process or, when appropriate, personally informing victims.  If victims are not aware of the complaint process, it becomes an  ineffective method for ensuring that the responsible DOJ officials are  complying with CVRA requirements and that corrective action is taken  when needed. Therefore, in our December 2008 report, we recommended  that DOJ explore opportunities to enhance publicity of the victim  complaint process to help ensure that all victims are made aware of it. In  commenting on a draft of our report, DOJ stated that it agreed that victims  should be well-informed of the complaint process and intended to take  steps to enhance victim awareness. However, as of September 11, 2009,  DOJ had not yet determined what steps are most appropriate, but hopes to  make this decision by the end of the year.
Even if victims submit complaints to DOJ regarding their CVRA rights, the  lack of independence within the complaint investigation process could  compromise impartiality of the investigation. Professional ombudsman  standards for investigating complaints against employees, as well as the  practices of other offices that investigate complaints, suggest that the  investigative process should be structured to ensure impartiality. For  example, in practice, the investigators are generally not located in the  same office with the subject of the investigation, in order to avoid possible  bias. DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates other  types of complaints against DOJ employees, also does not use  investigators who are located in the same office with the subject of the  complaint. However, under DOJ’s victim complaint investigation process,  the two are generally located in the same office. In addition, in some  instances the DOJ victim complaint investigator has been the subordinate  or peer of the subject of the complaint. According to DOJ officials, the  department structured the victim complaint investigation process as such  due to resource constraints and the perception that complaints could be  resolved more quickly if addressed locally. However, this structure gives  the appearance of bias in the investigation, which raises questions as to  whether DOJ employees’ violation of victims’ rights will be overlooked  and employees will not receive appropriate training on the treatment of  crime victims or disciplinary sanctions. In our December 2008 report, we  recommended that DOJ restructure the process for investigating federal  crime victim complaints in a way that ensures independence and  impartiality, for example, by not allowing individuals who are located in  the same office with the subject of the complaint to conduct the  investigation. In commenting on a draft of our report, DOJ stated that it  recognized the benefits of having an investigation process that ensures  independence and impartiality and that the working group, in consultation  with the VRO, would explore several options that will address this  concern. Subsequently, DOJ reported that on July 31, 2009, the VRO issued  guidance to ensure that complaint investigators refer to the VRO any  complaint where the investigator’s review of the complaint would raise an  actual or apparent conflict of interest. If the VRO determines that such a  conflict exists, the VRO would consider reassigning the complaint to  someone in a different office for investigation.
section_title: Few Victims Have Asserted CVRA Rights in Court, and Many Victims Who Responded to Our Survey Reported Not Being Aware of Their Ability to Do So
paragraphs: Among the hundreds of thousands of cases filed in the U.S. district courts  in the nearly 5-year period since the CVRA was enacted, we found 49  instances in which victims, or victims’ attorneys or prosecutors on behalf  of victims, asserted CVRA rights by filing a motion—either verbally or in  writing—with the district court. We also found 27 petitions for writs of  mandamus that were filed with the appellate courts, the majority of  which were in response to motions previously denied in the district court.  Table 2 summarizes the number of times CVRA rights were asserted in the  district and appellate courts and how the courts ruled in those instances.
Victim attorneys and federal judicial officials gave several potential  reasons for the low number of victim motions, including victims being  satisfied with how they were treated and victims either being intimidated  by the judicial process or too traumatized by the crime to assert their  rights in court. However, the most frequently cited reason for the low  number of motions was victims’ lack of awareness of this enforcement  mechanism. The results of our victim survey also suggest that victims lack  this awareness. Specifically, 134 of the 236 victims who responded to our  survey question regarding filing motions reported that they were not  aware of their ability to file a motion to assert their rights in district court,  and 48 did not recall whether they were aware. DOJ generally does not  inform victims of their ability to assert their rights in court. While the  CVRA does not explicitly require DOJ to do so, the law does direct DOJ to  inform victims of their eight CVRA rights and their ability to seek the  advice of an attorney. Thus, DOJ may be the most appropriate entity to  inform victims of this provision as well. In addition, DOJ’s guidelines state  that responsible officials should provide information to victims about their  role in the criminal justice process, which could include their ability to file  motions with regard to their CVRA rights. If victims are not aware of their  ability to assert their rights in court, it will reduce the effectiveness of this  mechanism in ensuring adherence to victims’ rights and addressing any  violations. In our December 2008 report, we recommended that DOJ  establish a mechanism for informing all victims of their ability to assert  their CVRA rights by filing motions and petitions for writs of mandamus,  such as by incorporating this information into brochures and letters sent  to victims and on agency Web sites. In commenting on a draft of our  report, DOJ stated that it agreed that victims should be well-informed of  their ability to assert their CVRA rights in district court and intended to  take steps to enhance victim awareness. However, as of September 11,  2009, DOJ had not yet decided upon an approach for enhancing victim  awareness, but hopes to make this decision by the end of the year.
section_title: Several Key Issues Have Arisen as the Courts Interpret and Apply the CVRA in Cases, and Judges Have Differing Interpretations Regarding Whether the Law Applies to the District of Columbia Superior Court
paragraphs: Several key issues have arisen as courts interpret and apply the CVRA in  cases, including (1) when in the criminal justice process CVRA rights  apply, (2) what it means for a victim to be “reasonably heard” in court  proceedings, (3) which standard should be used to review victim appeals  of district court decisions regarding CVRA rights, and (4) whether the  CVRA applies to victims of local offenses prosecuted in the District of  Columbia Superior Court.
First, the courts have issued varied decisions regarding whether CVRA  rights apply to victims of offenses that DOJ has not charged in court,  stating that the law applies in some circumstances and not in others. While  some courts have stated that CVRA rights doe not apply unless charges  have been filed, other courts have stated that certain VCRA rights, under  particular circumstances, may apply to victims of offenses that are  investigated but have not been charged in court. In implementing the  CVRA, DOJ has specified in its guidelines that CVRA rights do not apply  unless charges have been filed against a defendant, based on its initial  interpretation of the law, but is reviewing its policy in response to a court  ruling in 2008. On September 11, 2009, DOJ informed us that the  department was initiating a review of the Attorney General Guidelines for  Victim and Witness Assistance—which provides guidance to DOJ  prosecutorial, investigative, and correctional components related to the  treatment of crime victims—and any changes to the department’s position  on when CVRA rights apply would be reflected in the revised guidance.  DOJ is uncertain when the revised guidelines will be issued.
Second, the courts have issued varied rulings that interpret the meaning of  the right to be “reasonably heard” at court proceedings, with, for example,  one court ruling that the right to be heard gave victims the right to speak  and another ruling that the right could be satisfied by a written statement,  given the specific facts of the case.
Third, the courts have differing interpretations regarding which standard  should be used to review victim appeals of district court decisions  regarding CVRA rights. Typically, when a party appeals a district court  decision to a court of appeals, the court of appeals reviews the district  court decision using what may be called the ordinary appellate standard of  review. Under this standard, the court of appeals reviews the district court  decision for legal error or abuse of discretion. In contrast to an appeal, a  petition for a writ of mandamus is a request that a superior court order a  lower court to perform a specified action, and courts of appeals review  these petitions under a standard of review that is stricter than the ordinary  appellate standard of review. Under the standard traditionally used to  review petitions for writs of mandamus, petitioners must show that they  have no other adequate means to attain the requested relief, that the right  to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and that the writ is  appropriate under the circumstances. As of July 2008, 4 of the 12 circuits  were split on which standard of review should be used to review petitions  for writs of mandamus under the CVRA.
When new legislation is enacted, the courts typically interpret the law’s  provisions and apply the law as cases arise. As rulings on these cases are  issued, the courts build a body of judicial decisions—known as case law— which helps further develop the law. The issues discussed above have  arisen as cases have come before the courts, largely via motions and  petitions for writs of mandamus under the CVRA, and the rulings on these  issues will likely contribute to the further development of case law related  to the CVRA. However, DOJ and D.C. Superior Court officials stated that a  statutory change would be beneficial in resolving the issue of CVRA  applicability to the D.C. Superior Court.
The CVRA defines a crime victim as “a person directly and proximately  harmed as a result of a federal offense or an offense in the District of  Columbia.” At the same time, multiple provisions of the CVRA refer to  district courts, which do not include the D.C. Superior Court. While it is  apparent that the CVRA applies to victims whose federal offenses are  prosecuted in the U.S. district court in the District of Columbia, the CVRA  is not explicit about whether the law applies to victims of local offenses  prosecuted in the D.C. Superior Court. As a result, some judges in the D.C.  Superior Court are applying the CVRA, and others are not. In  implementing the CVRA, DOJ operates as if the CVRA applies to victims of  local offenses in the District of Columbia, and in July 2005, DOJ proposed  legislation to clarify whether the CVRA applies to cases in the D.C.  Superior Court, but no legislation had been passed. Without clarification  on this issue, the question of whether the D.C. Superior Court has  responsibility to implement the CVRA will remain, and judges in the D.C.  Superior Court may continue to differ in whether they apply the law in  their cases. As a result, victims may be told they are entitled to CVRA  rights by DOJ, but whether they are afforded these rights in Superior Court  proceedings will depend on which judge is presiding over their case. In our  December 2008 report, we suggested that Congress consider revising the  language of the CVRA to clarify this issue. As of September 2009, no  related legislation had been introduced.
section_title: Perceptions Vary Regarding Awareness of and Satisfaction with Victims’ Rights as well as Participation and Treatment of Crime Victims, and the Potential for Conflicting Interests between Victims and Defendants Is a Concern
paragraphs: Perceptions are mixed regarding the effect and efficacy of the  implementation of the CVRA, based on factors such as awareness of CVRA  rights; victim satisfaction, participation, and treatment; and potential  conflicts of the law with defendants’ interests. For example, while a  majority of federal crime victims who responded to our survey reported  that they were aware of most of their CVRA rights, less than half reported  that they were aware of their right to confer with the prosecutor. In  addition, victims who responded to our survey reported varying levels of  satisfaction with the provision of individual CVRA rights. For instance, 132  of the 169 victims who responded to the survey question regarding  satisfaction with their right to notice of public court proceedings reported  being satisfied with the provision of this right. In contrast, only 72 of the  229 victims who responded to the survey question regarding satisfaction  with the right to confer with the prosecutor reported being satisfied with  the provision of this right.
The general perception among the criminal justice system participants we  spoke with and surveyed is that CVRA implementation has improved the  treatment of crime victims, although many also believe that victims were  treated well prior to the act because of the influence of well-established  victims’ rights laws at the state level. Furthermore, while 72 percent of the  victim-witness personnel who responded to our survey perceived that the  CVRA has resulted in at least some increase in victim attendance at public  court proceedings, 141 of the 167 victims who responded to our survey  question regarding participation reported that they did not attend any of  the proceedings related to their cases, primarily because the location of  the court was too far to travel or they were not interested in attending.
Finally, defense attorneys and representatives of organizations that  promote the enforcement of defendants’ rights expressed some concerns  that CVRA implementation may pose conflicts with the interests of  defendants. For example, victims have the right not to be excluded from  public court proceedings unless clear and convincing evidence can be  shown that their testimony would be materially altered if they heard the  testimony of others first. However, 5 of the 9 federal defenders and 6 of  the 19 district judges we met with said that it would be very difficult, if not  impossible, to provide such evidence that the victim’s testimony would be  materially altered.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may  have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For questions about this statement, please contact Eileen R. Larence at  (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement  include Kristy N. Brown, Assistant Director; Tracey King; and Susan Sachs.  Additionally, key contributors to our December 2008 report include Lisa  Berardi Marflak, David Schneider, Matthew Shaffer and Johanna Wong, as  well as David Alexander, Stuart Kaufman, and Adam Vogt.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.