Student Review:

Cassell's article discusses the Utah Victims' Rights Amendment which provides rights to crime victims under the state constitution.  Cassell first cites crime statistics to demonstrate the growing crime problem and the number of new victims that are created each day.  He notes that while rights for criminal defendants increased, the criminal justice system did not address victims' concerns.  Utah's legislature created a bill of rights for victims, but this statute did not change the system and was frequently ignored by the courts.  Thus, with the seriousness of the prevailing problem, Utah established a constitutional amendment to protect crime victims.
     The Victims' Rights Amendment has two parts.  The first part establishes three specific rights of victims, and the second section makes changes to Utah's preliminary hearings.  The first specific right to be mandated was the right of victims to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity.  This provision gives victims standing to object to their treatment.  In addition to the constitutional provision, the legislature also elaborated on the victims' rights provision through accompanying legislation.  This allowed the legislature to define and enforce the provisions of the Amendment.
     The second requirement of the Amendment establishes that victims have the right to be informed of, be present at, and be heard at important criminal proceedings.  This provision ensures that the victim will be part of criminal proceedings and will be informed of proceedings by the prosecutor rather than hearing about it through the news.  The victim must be informed by the prosecutor after the filing of felony criminal charges against the defendant.  The victim then could return a postcard requesting further notices of important proceedings.  The act establishes some limitations on this right by laying out seven types of proceedings that are considered important criminal justice proceedings, and permitting the notice to be sufficient when the prosecutor makes a good faith attempt to provide notice.  Victims also have the right to be present at the proceeding unless their presence violates the rules of evidence.  Victims are also guaranteed the right to be heard and participate in the criminal justice proceeding.  Victims can tell the judge about the crime's impact, give imput before the court accepts a plea agreement, or make a statement before the defendant is sentenced.  The limitations on this provision do not give the victim the right to speak at trial or a preliminary hearing, the victim's speech must not be disruptive, and multiple victims can be limited to representative statements.
     The third provision of the Victims' Rights Amendment ensures that the victim has the right to have the sentencing judge consider al relevant sentencing information.  This provision allows any reliable information to be considered during sentencing.  The accompanying legislative statute also provides that victims have a right to a prompt disposition of the case, the right to introduce a photograph of the victim taken while the victim was alive, and the right to keep the victim's addresses private during trial.  The act also establishes that attorneys must use age-appropriate language in questioning children under thirteen, and that victims shall be allowed to attend juvenile court proceedings.
 The second section of the Amendment establishes reforms for Utah's preliminary hearings.  The Amendment provides for greater admissibility of hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings (not requiring that victims testify and be cross-examined), establishes that preliminary hearings do not have discovery purposes, and ensures the standard for proof is probable cause for preliminary hearings.
     Thus, all of the provision of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment establish greater protection for the victims of serious crimes.  Cassell feels that such state amendments demonstrate shifting values in the criminal justice system to include victims' rights.  Rather than focusing the criminal system only on the rights of defendants, this new movement allows both sides to be protected.

Article Summary by: Corrie Noir
Wake Forest University School of Law 1999