Federal Cases for Victims Rights
This subsection discusses major legal cases from the federal court system, often around either federal or state laws that gave victims some rights. Although there are not many such cases, the following are cases that directly impacted the laws around victims’ rights.
Booth v. Maryland (482 U.S. 496, 1987) argued that victim impact statements are unconstitutional, which came from both federal and state laws like the 1984 Victims of Crime Act. This case surrounds the rights of victims to have victims’ impacts statements (VIS) included during the sentencing process. Specifically, it challenged the Maryland law that allowed the VIS during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case. The argument was that it violated the offenders Eighth Amendment rights because the statements were inflammatory and unnecessary. Specifically, the emotional statements served no other purpose than to “inflame the jury and divert it from deciding the case on the relevant evidence concerning the crime and the defendant” (Justia, n.d.). The case went to the Supreme Court and in a 5-4 split, they agreed with the defendant, Booth, that the information from the VIS was not relevant to the sentencing phase and, thus, not necessary. Justice White, writing for the dissent, disagreed and felt that the jury should be reminded that it is not only the offender who is an individual but also the victim. Justice Scalia, also commenting on the dissent, felt that the amount of harm done to the victim’s families was relevant to the sentence phase of a case (Booth v. Maryland 482 U.S. 496, 1987). This goes counter to prior Supreme Court cases that had mostly argued that all relevant evidence should be included in a case.
State v. Ciskie (110 Wn.2d 263, 1988) is the first case to allow the use of expert testimony to explain the behavior and mental state of an adult rape victim. The case
surrounds a woman who claimed she had been raped at least four times during a 23-month period while in a relationship with the defendant. The relationship had become violent, including stalking, harassment, and several incidents of rape. An expert witness was brought in to testify that the victim was suffering from battered women’s syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The testimony was used to show why a victim of repeated physical and sexual assaults by her intimate partner would not immediately call the police or take action. Previous cases around kidnapping (United States v. Winters, 1984) allowed experts to testify about the state of mind of the victim. The court supported the expert testimony as permissible, and the jury convicted the defendant on four counts of rape.
South Carolina v. Gathers (490 U.S. 805, 1989). In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its 1987 decision in Booth v. Maryland that victim impact evidence and arguments are unconstitutional when applied to the penalty phase of a capital trial. Again, significant dissenting opinions were offered. VIS must be directly related to the “circumstances of the crime,” not about the impact of the crime (Justia, n.d.).
Payne v. Tennessee (501 U.S. 808, 1991). In their 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) and ruled that testimony and prosecutorial arguments commenting on the murder victim’s good character, as well as how the victim’s death affected his or her survivors, do not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights in a capital case. In addition, the punishment should fit the crime and because the defendant has the right to present mitigating evidence during sentencing, so should the prosecutor. The impact of Payne was broad, leading the majority of states to allow VIS during sentencing. This was a significant win for the victims’ rights movement (Schmalleger, 2006).
United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598, 2000). The case was a challenge to a section of the VAWA that allowed victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that this clause violated both the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. They stated that Congress had overstepped its authority by taking the cases out of the state courts, even if there was gender bias in the state systems because Congress was targeting private citizens (the offenders) and not the systems themselves.
Kenna v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (05-73467, 2006). This was about fraud, specifically Moshe and Zvi Leichner, father and son, who swindled victims out of almost $100 million. More than 60 victims submitted VIS to the courts, but during the sentencing phase, the courts denied victims the right to be heard, stating that the court had already heard from the victims in earlier phases of the case and it was not necessary. W. Patrick Kenna, one of the victims, filed a timely petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacating Zvi’s sentence and commanding the district court to allow the victims to speak at the resentencing. The Ninth Circuit Court held that victims did have a right to be heard at sentences beyond just the impact statements (Vidmer, 2007).
These are the most significant cases that are relevant to general victimization in the United States. Additional cases will be discussed in later modules that are specific to certain types of victimization, like sexual assault or victimization of children. Overall, victims’ rights, both through the CJS and the courts, have been greatly expanded during the last 30 years. Their voices have a greater impact today than they have since the state took over the role of charging and prosecuting offenders. However, victims’ rights advocates feel there is still room for improvement, including increasing the protection of victims and creating more ways to help victims heal.