[Senate Hearing 106-434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-434
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
CRIME VICTIMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, FEDERALISM, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
EXPLORING THE ROLE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE IN SAFEGUARDING
THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND EXAMINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
VICTIMS
__________
ST. LOUIS, MO
__________
MAY 1, 1999
__________
Serial No. J-106-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-523 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
Paul Clement, Chief Counsel
Jeff Miller, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER
Page
Ashcroft, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri..... 1
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Panel consisting of Carol Angelbeck, director, Lewis & Clark
Chapter, parents of murdered children, Troy, MO; Mata Weber,
parent of a murdered child; Anita and Buck Lawrence, parents of
Willie Lawrence, Big Fork, MT; David Lawrence, uncle to Willie
Lawrence, son of Lloyd and Frankie Lawrence, Shell Knob, MO;
and Retha Lawrence, aunt to Willie Lawrence, daughter of Lloyd
and Frankie Lawrence, Shell Knob, MO........................... 4
Panel consisting of Darrell Ashlock, president, Missouri Victims'
Assistance Network, Jefferson City, Mo; Kim LeBaron, executive
director, Victims Support Services, Kirksville, MO; Joe Taylor,
president of the board, Aid for Victims of Crime, St. Louis,
MO; Joe Bednar, Legal Counsel, Office of the Governor,
Jefferson City, MO; Paul Cassell, professor of law, University
of Utah, College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT.................... 16
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Anglebeck, Carol: Testimony...................................... 4
Ashlock, Darrrell: Testimony..................................... 16
Bednar, Joseph: Testimony........................................ 23
Cassell, Paul:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Lawrence, Anita: Testimony....................................... 8
Lawrence, Buck: Testimony........................................ 9
Lawrence, David: Testimony....................................... 11
Lawrence, Retha: Testimony....................................... 13
LeBaron, Kim: Testimony.......................................... 19
Taylor, Joe: Testimony........................................... 21
Weber, Mata: Testimony........................................... 6
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS
----------
SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism,
and Property Rights,
Committee on the Judiciary,
St. Louis, MO.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., at the Old Federal
Courthouse, 11 North Fourth Street, St. Louis, MO, Hon. John
Ashcroft (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Ashcroft. Good morning. Welcome to our hearing on
the important issue of protecting victims' rights. I look
forward to this opportunity to explore the role that the
Federal Government can have in safeguarding the rights of
victims.
This is both an appropriate time and place to have such a
discussion, and to examine the Constitutional rights of
victims. It is an appropriate time because today is the last
day of National Victims' Week, a week of each year that we set
aside especially to try and think about serious ways that we
could mitigate the victimization of individuals as it relates
to criminal behavior.
The old courthouse is an appropriate place for this hearing
because of the important role this particular Courthouse has
played in the struggle for individual rights.
Back in Washington, DC, the Senate Judiciary Committee has
been considering a proposed Constitutional amendment to put the
rights of crime victims on at least equal footing, with the
rights of those who commit crimes against the victims. That
proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 3, is cosponsored
by Senator John Kyl of Arizona and Senator Diane Feinstein of
California, and has been referred to the Constitution
Subcommittee.
This is a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposal will give victims of
violent crime a Federal Constitutional right to participate at
critical stages in the criminal justice process. I plan to hold
an executive business session of the Subcommittee the week of
May 10 to consider the matter further.
Now, what executive business session of the Subcommittee
means, is that the bill would be marked up. And when you mark
up a bill, you consider proposed amendments, you make the final
adjustments of a particular bill or resolution for purposes of
sending it to the full committee or ultimately to the floor of
the Senate.
And I hope that today's field hearing will help inform that
discussion, will help shape that final hearing with the
thoughts and experiences of Americans outside Washington's
Beltway.
I, personally, have long supported the recognition and
protection of the rights of crime victims. For too long victims
were the forgotten individuals in our criminal justice system.
As the Warren Court expanded the rights of criminals well
beyond their original conception, the rights of victims were
all too frequently ignored. In the name of promoting individual
rights, the Warren Court sided with criminal defendants over
State prosecutors, leaving the individual rights of victims
entirely out of the Court's calculus.
As a consequence, movements started in many states to
guarantee victims of crime a place at the table of justice.
Many States attempted to guarantee victims the essential
components of ``due process,'' notice of the proceedings
affecting them, and an opportunity for victims to be heard, as
well as the prosecutor and the defendant to be heard.
I had the privilege of supporting this process in Missouri
during my time as Governor. It was during my time as Governor
that I signed the law putting the Missouri Victims' Rights
Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in this State. The
measure was then approved overwhelmingly by the people of
Missouri.
Unfortunately, these State efforts, while critically
important, fail to provide sufficient protection for crime
victims. When the Federal Constitutional rights created for
criminal defendants clash with the statutory framework or the
Constitution of any State, Federal judges impose and State
judges are required to impose a Supremacy of the Federal
Constitution's laws, and as a result, judges are always forced
to set aside, in a conflict, the State law about victims'
rights in favor of the Federal regard for the criminal
defendant's rights.
The only way to ensure that the victims are treated with
dignity and fairness is to enshrine the rights of victims in
the Federal Constitution so that they won't be displaced in
Federal courts or as a result of Federal rulings by Federal
judges.
So, the proposed amendment that we are considering in
Washington would do that; it would provide enforceable Federal
rights for victims of violent crime to be present at trial and
during sentencing, and to have input in parole decisions, and
to receive notification of a prisoner's release or escape.
This last March, the full Judiciary Committee held a
hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Washington,
DC. At that time, I raised two concerns about the proposed
amendment that I would like to explore at today's hearing:
First, I am concerned that the proposed amendment fails to
provide any explicit rights to the victim when an executive
commutes the sentence of a convicted criminal. At every other
critical stage in the process from the trial, to sentencing, to
release--the amendment guarantees victims the right to notice,
and where appropriate, the right for an opportunity to be
heard.
It just doesn't make sense to me to provide these important
rights to victims when the court imposes the original sentence
and when the parole board considers deviating from the
sentence, but to deny this same opportunity or right to them
when an executive considers reducing the sentence with a stroke
of his pen.
What good does it do to amend the Constitution to guarantee
a right to be present at sentencing if the State retains the
right to revisit and to revise the sentence without notice to
the victims?
This is, in my judgment, an omission in the law that is
worth rectifying. The recent experience of the Lawrence family
has made clear the profound impact that a commutation can have
on the victims of crime. I am grateful that members of the
Lawrence family asked to testify at any victims' rights hearing
to share their tragic personal experience, and I'm pleased as
well, that representatives of the organization of Parents of
Murdered Children, a victims advocacy group, have been able to
join us as well.
I know that all of you have to wrestle with the serious
problems that these tragedies revisit for you, but I appreciate
the fact that you are willing to endure that kind of
discomfort--to use a word that is inadequate to explain what is
happening--in order to try and help avoid it for other people.
The second concern I have about the proposed Constitutional
amendment we'll be addressing today is that it limits its
important protection to the victims of violent crime. While
violent crimes certainly bring home the need to protect
victims, there are victims of nonviolent crimes, crimes like
major elderly fraud where people lose their homes or where
there are serious nonviolent affronts to individuals that
deserve our protection as well.
The Warren Court certainly did not distinguish between
violent and nonviolent crimes when it created the rights for
criminals. That doesn't seem to be any better basis for making
a distinction between violent and nonviolent rights of crime
victims.
Indeed, the victims of some nonviolent crimes, such as
fraud where criminals carefully select their victims to prey on
the elderly or the ailing, are among the most deserving of
protection. Victims of elder-fraud and identity theft should
not be left unprotected.
Our second panel this morning will include the discussion
of this issue, as well as the application of the proposed
Constitutional amendment to cases of domestic crime.
The tragic experiences of crime victims underscore the need
for vigorous protection of the rights and interests of
individuals who have been the victims of criminal activity.
Frankly, there are very few Government functions that are more
important than helping the people who are victims of crimes.
The proposed Constitutional amendment makes necessary strides
to guarantee victims a seat at the table to ensure that the
rights of criminal defendants are not the only individual
rights considered by judges and parole officers.
However, there is still room for improvement, and I hope
that today's hearing will help us move forward in an effort to
improve this amendment that we ultimately hope to enshrine as a
part of the Constitution of the United States. We can work
together to provide crime victims with the full measure of
protection they need and deserve.
PANEL CONSISTING OF CAROL ANGELBECK, DIRECTOR, LEWIS & CLARK
CHAPTER, PARENTS OF MURDERED CHILDREN, TROY, MO; MATA WEBER,
PARENT OF A MURDERED CHILD; ANITA AND BUCK LAWRENCE, PARENTS OF
WILLIE LAWRENCE, BIG FORK, MT; DAVID LAWRENCE, UNCLE TO WILLIE
LAWRENCE, SON OF LLOYD AND FRANKIE LAWRENCE, SHELL KNOB, MO;
AND RETHA LAWRENCE, AUNT TO WILLIE LAWRENCE, DAUGHTER OF LLOYD
AND FRANKIE LAWRENCE, SHELL KNOB, MO
STATEMENT OF CAROL ANGELBECK
Senator Ashcroft. It is pleasing now for me to have the
opportunity to call up the witnesses for our first panel.
Our first witness this morning is Carol Angelbeck from St.
Charles, Mo. Ms. Angelbeck is the leader of the Lewis & Clark
Chapter of Parents of Murdered Children.
Tragically, Ms. Angelbeck's daughter, Mindy Griffin, was
murdered on September 30, 1995. She has been active on the
issue of victims' rights ever since.
Ms. Angelbeck, thank you for coming to share your
experiences with us, and we look forward to learning from you.
Would you proceed with your testimony at this time.
Ms. Angelbeck. Thank you, Senator Ashcroft. Thank you for
allowing me to speak. When our 24-year-old daughter, Mindy
Griffin, was found raped and strangled in her Lake St. Louis
condominium on September 30, 1995----
Senator Ashcroft. Can I interrupt you for a minute? Can
staff do anything to elevate the sound? Are these for
recording? These are not going to do anything then to help
people in the room, so if you could, please speak up. It seems
like people in the room are having trouble hearing, and I want
people to hear your testimony. Pardon me. These will record the
testimony, they are not amplifying your voice.
Ms. Angelbeck. Do you want me to start over?
Senator Ashcroft. Please do.
Ms. Angelbeck. When our 24-year-old daughter, Mindy
Griffin, was found raped and strangled in her Lake St. Louis
condominium on September 30, 1995, by a complete stranger, my
world stopped. I couldn't breathe, sleep, eat or do any of the
normal, everyday tasks that we take for granted.
The pain that a mother or father feels when the loss of a
child occurs, especially with the violence of rape or murder,
it's like a scream starting in your very soul, and it moves
like a wave in the ocean, getting larger and larger until your
whole being is engulfed in this pain.
It is like watching my life from a distance. I have no idea
how I made it through the wake and the funeral. I assume shock
helps us make it through this hard time.
I remember seeing Mindy lying in a coffin for the first
time; also, Mindy's body being removed from her condominium in
a body bag. I just knew it couldn't be my daughter, the baby
that I brought into this world. Then, the reality hits you in
the face, the first meeting with the police to identify items
of my daughter's.
The first time you are in court with the criminal justice
system, everything is overwhelming. The same question keeps
going through your mind: Why, God, why my daughter? I asked the
police why that Sunday, and they said that Mindy was in the
wrong place at the wrong time. I ask: Is being in your own home
the wrong place at the wrong time? I do not think so.
We are no longer safe in our own home in our country. The
city where Mindy lived had never had a homicide in the 20 years
it was a city.
We went through 3 years of living hell, with our minds
fluctuating between why Michael Shane Worthington picked our
daughter, and why did she have to die alone, and such a violent
death. Our coroner said in court that it takes 4 to 7 minutes
to die by strangulation, and Michael Worthington testified in
court that he strangled Mindy twice.
We went through three judges, many court delays caused by
the defense attorneys. Joel Eisenstein was the first. He lost
his license due to a Federal tax problem. Then came Rosenblum,
Kessler, and Green. Mr. Green tried to make a deal with Judge
Cundiff behind our back. That is the day I fully realized what
our criminal justice was all about.
We never had any dealings with the court and lawyers, so it
was quite a shock for us. St. Charles prosecuting attorney, Tim
Braun, our Prosecutor Ross Buheler, and victims assistant
Maggie Lipman, have been very, very helpful during the 3 years.
They kept us informed of all the court hearings.
When Judge Cundiff offered a plea for life, we were told,
and we requested a meeting with the judge. Mr. Braun and Mr.
Buheler set up this hearing, and when I asked Judge Cundiff why
he offered to plea for life instead of death, his exact words
to me were he wanted the SOB to stand up in front of him and
tell him what he did to my daughter. And I asked him: Did you
look at a crime scene photo? Did you read the police reports?
Did you read the coroner's reports? He answered ``no'' to all
these questions. I said Judge Cundiff, you would know what he
did to my daughter if you had done one of these three.
I realized again the games that are played between judges
and attorneys. The Judge asked if we would like him to remove
himself from the case, and I said ``yes.'' This resulted in a
9-month delay. It is important for victims to be included in
the justice system and to be able to work closely with the
prosecutor attorney's office.
In Missouri, we have a good Victims Program. House bill
325, if passed, would allow victims to be in the courtroom even
if they are to testify. Missouri victims' rights is supposed to
do mandatory notification if anything changes with the inmate.
However, I believe it is just like the judges, the defense
lawyers, and the prosecuting attorneys: They need to be
educated also regarding victims' rights.
It is often easier for them not to get involved with the
victims. I understand in a capital murder, the court or the
prosecuting attorney's office is to give information for
notifying families of any changes. However, as a victim myself,
I feel I should also be responsible for giving this information
to the Attorney General's office to make sure they have a way
to contact us of any changes.
My husband and I are submitting an initiative petition to
the Secretary of State for approval to form for the proposed
Constitutional amendment, which would prohibit a Governor from
being able to commute a death penalty. I feel when all appeals
have been met, and no new evidence has been brought forward,
there is absolutely no reason to detain or commute a death
penalty.
Victims should have the right to testify in person before
the jury, as the defendant is in the courtroom for the entire
trial, and also have the right to take the stand in his own
defense.
However, the Victims' Rights Amendment has to be enforced.
We need to make the judges and attorneys aware of these rights.
There has to be a way to ensure the victims' rights are carried
out in all of our communities.
We have approximately 60 members of the Lewis & Clark
Chapter of POMC. Some are new in grief; for others of us, it
has been a few years. However, we all have times when we need
to feel the need to lean on each other.
I believe we need to have much stronger laws for victims'
rights. We must find ways to enforce the Victims' Rights
Amendment, and to make sure all judges and attorneys--both
prosecutors and defense lawyers--are aware and uphold the
amendment to assure that the victims have the same rights as
the defendant.
After all, we are the ones who will spend the rest of our
life living without our loved one, and will have to find a
place in our heart and soul to go on with life, and to help
others who suffer the greatest tragedy in life, which is the
murder of our loved one.
Thank you, very much.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you, Ms. Angelbeck.
I understand we also have a chapter leader of the St. Louis
Chapter of the Parents of Murdered Children with us this
morning, Ms. Mata Weber.
Ms. Weber, I would be very pleased for you to add anything
that you would like to add to the record by virtue of remarks.
Please direct your voice to the microphone. We need for you
to speak up.
STATEMENT OF MATA WEBER
Ms. Weber. Thank you, very much, Senator, for being here,
and for allowing us to be here and speak to you.
My name is Mata Weber, and I am a parent of a murdered
child. My daughter, Karen, was 21 years old. She was murdered
April 27, 1982, in Madison County. She was kidnaped from her
place of business, driven 15 miles to the Livingston Reservoir
where she was very cruelly murdered.
She left two children; they were two and three at the time,
and how do you tell a child that their mother is never coming
back? It's been the worst thing that has ever happened to me in
my entire life. And if you talk to anyone who has had a loved
one murdered, they will tell that also. You can have a death in
the family, you can have a divorce, you can have illness.
Nothing is as bad as having your child or your loved one
murdered.
We were fortunate, if I can use that word, to say that we
came in contact with very sensitive and kind police, District
Attorney, support people from the Victims Service in Madison
County. I ended up with people's home telephone numbers. If I
needed to call the prosecutor with a question, he was always
there.
I don't know that the murder of my daughter made a
difference with them or not, but they were very good to me. We
went to trial right away. Supposedly, this man's attorney
didn't believe he was guilty. We went to trial--Karen was
murdered in April; we went to trial in September.
The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, gave him
50 years, and when I walked out of the courtroom, I said to the
prosecutor well, maybe now I can get on with my life. He said,
oh, no, you're going to hear from this guy soon. I said what do
you mean? His first appeal will be about 3 years from now.
Well, it was almost 3 years to the day. He won an appeal
for a brand new trial. So we had to go through the same thing
over again. It took a whole year because he was trying to say
that the evidence that convicted him the first time, there was
an error in it. So he sent the blood work to California,
looking for some changes, something wrong with it.
At the end of the year, the judge said we've delayed long
enough, we're going to go to trial. So his attorney approaches
and asks for a plea bargain. Well, in 1982, we had no victims'
rights, so most of us didn't know anything about what was going
on in the justice system.
You could not tell the jury where this man had been for 3
years. You could not tell the jury that this is the second
trial for the same offense for this man. Many things were not
going to be allowed in the second time. So I agreed to a plea
bargain: For 25 years, this man would stand in front of me and
tell me that he murdered my daughter.
But in the state of Illinois at that particular time, 25
years didn't mean 25 years. You got 1 day off for every day you
served in prison. So, in June 1994, this man walked out of
prison, free and clear on a murder charge.
It's been the most horrible thing that has ever happened to
me my entire life. I joined Parents of Murdered Children in
1985, one of the original people. I am now the chapter leader.
We probably have spoken to somewhere between 500 and 1,000
people in all this period of time, listened to their stories.
People come to the meetings, sometimes just once. People
come off and on, and some people are there every single month.
They need some support; they need to know that every time they
walk in that room, you know how they feel, you know what's
going on.
All of you people in this room can tell Carol and I and the
families--the Lawrence family, that you understand, and you
know what we're going through, but you don't. You have to have
a child or a loved one murdered to know what we're going
through.
I'm here today for this Constitutional Amendment. We have
to work harder on it. I'm not sure of the time, but I think it
has been worked on now for 5 years. How much longer is this
going to take to get us victims' rights on the Federal level?
We don't want anything elaborate, we just want plain simple
rights.
It's true right now, in the state of Missouri and Illinois,
if a prisoner is paroled, they will contact you. But that's
only if you contact the Department of Corrections first. How
about if they send the prisoner back and forth through the
prison system? Nobody lets you know about that. You're not
allowed to know if they've been transferred. We'd like to have
that right, too. If they're going to release him, then they
will let us know that. If they're going to commute his
sentence, we don't have a right to know that, and we want to
know.
All of us here are victims. Remember our faces, and try to
work harder to get this amendment passed. Thank you, very much.
Senator Ashcroft. Ms. Weber, I am sorry. I think I
mispronounced your name.
Ms. Weber. That's OK.
Senator Ashcroft. It is Mata, and I did not mean to do
that, and I do not know why I would have said that. I
apologize. Thank you for being willing to come and help us this
morning.
Our next witnesses are Buck and Anita Lawrence. The
Lawrences are parents of Willie Lawrence, and live in Big Fork,
MT. Buck is the son of Lloyd and Frankie Lawrence. I deeply
appreciate their willingness to share their tragic story, and I
call upon Anita to go first and Buck to go second.
And after that, I will call upon other members of the
Lawrence family. Please pull that microphone close to you so
that we can record what you are saying.
STATEMENT OF ANITA LAWRENCE
Ms. Lawrence. I'm glad I have the opportunity to testify
here today to keep another family from going through what we've
just had to go through.
My name is Anita Lawrence. I'm the mother of Willie
Lawrence. Willie was killed on May 15, 1988. He was killed
because, the killer's words, ``He would have recognized me.''
Willie was 19 and was paralyzed from the waist down from a
car accident. Willie loved life, and when he was in the
hospital, the nurses recommended that we further some kind of
education for him to help other people because of his good
outlook that he had and his good attitude about being
paralyzed.
And he loved his grandparents, and on a particular
occasion, he had went down to West Fork with his grandparents,
and they just happened to be at the wrong place, I guess.
Senator Ashcroft. Just take your time.
Ms. Lawrence. He left a note on the refrigerator that he
was with his grandparents, and I have never seen him after that
day, that morning I left home. He had spent the night down at
West Fork with his grandparents, and Retha went down the next
day at 2:20 on Sunday afternoon, and she found them. All had
been murdered.
So she called Buck, and Buck looked around and told me and
Linda that it was the worst nightmare that we could ever
possibly think happened.
Then we went--after they arrested Mease, he went to trial.
We attended every day. And one day, they asked us to step out
because the guy that done the autopsy was going to do the
testimony, and they told us that it was so bad that we didn't
need to hear how he looked.
They never showed the photographs publicly; only Retha and
the jury ever seen the photographs. The jury took a week, and
they made the decision, and they give him the death penalty. We
were happy with the verdict from the jury.
We expected the system to work for us. When it come time to
put Darrell to death, then that would close the book. We could
put it on the shelf and try to get on with our lives.
But as you know, that didn't happen, because Mr. Carnahan
opened it back up for us when he commuted Darrell. And we found
out on January 28. We were visiting friends, and we sat down to
watch the evening news with our friends. They always watch
Jeopardy. So we watched Jeopardy, and then we watched the
evening news.
And then when the news come on, the first thing on the news
was Mease walking through in his orange suit with a smile on
his face. And then, they showed a picture of my mother-in-law
and father-in-law and my son on their four-wheelers at the
scene. We had never seen this picture. I had never seen
Willie's body. I had never seen Willie in that condition, and
it was a nightmare.
I had nightmares for a week afterwards. I would actually
get up and have to go to the bathroom and throw up. I had to
see a doctor, and take tranquilizers just to get me through it.
I'd walk the floor. My emotions was just--I don't know how to
explain it.
The other mothers here know how I felt. I think that if the
Governor would have just took the time to look at the pictures
and heard our side; if he had just talked to us, I think it
would have made a difference on how the case would have come
out.
If he would have just called us and gave us a warning to
let us know what was going--what would be showed on TV, maybe
we wouldn't have had to watch the news to find out--to see
those.
At least if he would have called, I could have spoke in
Willie's behalf. I feel that the Governor ignored the victims'
side of this. It's like he don't care about us. He don't care
about us as a family and what we've had to go through.
All we are asking is that the next family at least be given
the chance to be heard from. That the decision of the Governor
may not be changed; at least, we would be able to say that we
tried to have justice done, rather than having to say we were
left completely out of the process.
We had a promise from the judicial system that we thought
was going to work with us that Darrell Mease was going to get
the death penalty, and it's hard to live now with the fact that
he's not. Thanks for letting me be here.
Senator Ashcroft. Well, I thank you for working so hard to
get through that, and while none of us can fully understand, we
are at least aware in some measure of how difficult this is for
you.
Mr. Lawrence.
STATEMENT OF BUCK LAWRENCE
Mr. Lawrence Buck. Thank you, Senator, for allowing us to
be in this hearing on the issues of victims' rights to be
notified.
My name is Buck Lawrence, and my son Willie was murdered on
May 1988. At the same time, my father and mother were also
murdered. The guilty received a sentence of death from the jury
that heard the case. That sentence was upheld in every court
hearing during the past 10 years. Then, with no forewarning to
us, the killer's death sentence was commuted by the Governor of
Missouri.
I sat through the trial. The testimony showed that early in
the morning of May 15, 1988, Darrell Mease constructed a blind,
and cut tree branches and placed them in a semi-circle near a
large tree about 15 feet from a road leading from the Lawrence
cabin to where the road forded a small creek. Mease hid in the
blind for several hours.
About noon, my son and my parents approached Mease's
position, riding four-wheel, all terrain vehicles. Willie was
driving fast and was the first to pass Mease's position.
Because Willie was paralyzed due to a 1986 car accident, his
feet were tied to the handlebars by the shoe laces to keep them
on the vehicle.
Some distance behind him and driving slower, were my
parents Lloyd and Frankie. Both were riding on one vehicle. As
my father came even with Mease's location, Mease shot him, then
my mother, then my father again, using a shotgun loaded
alternately with buckshot and slugs. Their vehicle went forward
slowly and came to a stop in the creek.
At that point, Mease came out of the woods. By that time,
my son Willie had turned around and was returning toward the
scene. It was then that Mease shot Willie using a 12-gauge
shotgun still alternately loaded with double-aught buckshots.
Mease then shot my mother, father, and son in the head at
pointblank range. Mease took my father's wallet, a watch, and
two rings. My father's money, $600, was removed from the
wallet, and the wallet was hidden under a log.
Mease later confessed to all the killings, and stated he
killed Willie because Willie would have recognized me, and I
had to do him, too. Mease was given a death sentence by the
jury, and that sentence was commuted by the Governor.
At this hearing today, I will tell you how I came to know
about commutation, and how that hurt myself and my family. As
Anita stated earlier, we were visiting some friends at their
home in Montana on January 28, 1999. We all sat down to watch
the evening news. Then, to our amazement, the news anchor
announced that the death sentence of Mease had been commuted at
the request of the Governor.
Then the news program showed photographs of the scene of
the murder. We had never seen these photographs before. I was
in shock. I really feared at the same time for my wife. She's
in very bad health. I looked over at her, and it was just like
when we had initially been told.
We just couldn't hardly think at all. We wondered how could
this happen to us? I could only think why we would have not
been notified of something like this. I couldn't believe the
system had failed like that.
It was, like I said, bad as when we first learned of the
news of the killings. It brought back so many emotions as when
we were just told. I wish the Governor would have called. He
wouldn't have wanted to do a commutation after he talked to us.
I could have told him how many lives was destroyed, and that he
was going to do this all over again if he did this.
What did we do to him for us to get this kind of treatment?
It was a complete violation of us to have to hear of this
without even getting a chance to voice our opinion. We're never
going to be the same. Our intentions for this whole thing is to
make sure no other family has to deal with these things.
It's terribly unfair for the Governor to rattle off as he
did, but then to say he's exempt from it to do whatever he
wants to do or to say, this law doesn't pertain to me. By not
getting any notice beforehand, we were not even able to talk
about this as a family before the numerous news media calls
came into the family members.
The news media knew about it before we did. That's how we
found out about it like we did, was through the news. I, for
sure, thought the system would carry out whatever punishment
was recommended by the jury. Whatever the jury said was
something that was OK with us. We couldn't change their
verdict.
But once the jury did give him the death sentence, we were
required to go along with the punishment, and that should be
carried out. We didn't think we had to do--to do anything to
make the system work. During that time the punishment was
imposed, the family endured a week-long trial. I attended that
trial each day. We had to walk right by the killer. That was
pretty rough.
What we're asking is that the next family not have to learn
about it the way we did. We're now going to crave justice for
the rest of our lives. And that's all. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you, Anita, and thank you, Buck.
There are other members of the Lawrence family here today,
David Lawrence and Retha Lawrence, and I would welcome their
comments at this time, if they would like to add anything.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LAWRENCE
First of all, I'd like to thank you, Senator Ashcroft, for
allowing me to appear up here today before this Committee. I
wish the circumstances had not brought me here, but--I would
prefer that just took its course, and I was back home in Shell
Knob. But I feel it's necessary that I be here today.
Again, my name is David Lawrence. I'm the uncle to Willie
Lawrence. Lloyd was my dad, and Frankie was my mom. On May 15,
1988, they were rudely murdered by Darrell Mease. This was the
beginning of a very trying time for our family.
After sitting through a jury trial which I attended every
day, I was accepting the jury's punishment. It really wouldn't
have mattered at the time if Darrell Mease had received life in
prison without parole, or the death sentence. Of course,
everyone knows he received the death sentence.
For 10 years, we lived with that. We learned to live with
the fact that he would be put to death. Then there was a turn
of events, events that turned our family upside-down. And this
is something that could have been avoided if someone would have
made just one phone call to any of our members. I'd like to
tell you how I heard about the situation of his being commuted.
I was called by a friend in Chicago, Diane Karmas. She
asked me to turn the TV on to World News, the CNN Headline
News. She said there was something on there about our mom and
dad and Mease. While she was telling me these things, I'd
turned the TV on to CNN News, and sure enough, they were
showing something on there about Mease and our folks.
Well, I have call waiting and there was a call coming in,
so I asked Diane to hold on for a minute, and I took the call,
and it was the media. They asked me how I felt, what my
reaction was to the Governor's decision. And I told them, I
said, you're going to have to wait a minute. I said, I'm just
now hearing about.
At this time, I couldn't make a statement. In fact,
everything just started spinning. I was confused as to what in
the world is happening. And so--and another thing, how can this
be going on?
So, when they said they was going to put him to death,
again, all of a sudden, things were not going right. Again, it
took us a long time to prepare mentally for what was going to
take place, and we're talking a 10-year period here that we
prepared ourselves for this.
And then whenever this come up, it actually puts you in
shock; you don't know what to do. And one thing that does
happen is that your mind starts going back to May 15, 1988.
You're right back there on the crime scene again. And something
like that will probably never leave a person.
Today, as we have tried talking about this, the emotions
are still there after all these years. We continued on that
afternoon. Diane got a hold of me around 2 o'clock, and from
that point on, the phone continued to ring. We had calls coming
in from California, New York, Texas, Chicago, Kansas City, St.
Louis, many of the local stations, TV and radio. They was all
trying to get a hold of us. The phone calls continued to come
in until 10:40 that night, we took our last call.
And, of course, we had a pretty rough night, not much
sleep. And at 5:40 that morning, the phone calls started coming
in again, and they continued throughout the day. And so--I
mean, this was--it was really pretty hard to deal with. You
don't know, at first, what to say because of the shock that
you've been put in.
But then, as the day goes on, your mind starts clearing up
a little bit, so I did make a few statements throughout the
day. But there is one point that I'd like to make: We lived in
Shell Knob all of our lives. Linda and I have had the same
phone number for 20 years. She's a postal employee; my sister
works at the post office; I'm a part-time worker at the post
office. All three of us have businesses in Shell Knob.
We are not hard people to get a hold of. So, all it would
have taken would have been a simple phone call. And had we had
that chance, if someone would have called us, we would have had
the opportunity to talk together as a family , but we didn't
have that chance.
It would be of great service to anyone in the same
circumstances or similar circumstances not to have to go
through the shock, the anxieties, the stress that something
like this causes. It really turns your life upside down. And
all it would have taken would have been one phone call to any
one of the family members. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you. Retha.
STATEMENT OF RETHA LAWRENCE
I would like to take this time to thank you, Senator
Ashcroft, to listen to us, and I appreciate the time and effort
that has been put forth here. I hope that something like this
will never have to happen to anyone else. No one, no living
human being should have to go through what we have gone
through.
My name is Retha Lawrence. I'm the daughter of Frankie and
Lloyd. Willie is my nephew, and I am the one that found them.
About 2:20, May 15, 1988, I was on my way down to our vacation
area. I'm a single person. I had a little schnauzer dog with me
that day; her name was Colby.
And I stopped at the top of the hill and got an ice cream
cone. I was driving down to our cabin. We had certain gates to
go through; I went through. And I talked to Colby just like who
she was, part of the family, you know.
I come around the corner, and when you come around the
corner, it drops down into the creek, and I said there they are
Colby. And I realized what I had found. I went on up, and then,
within a split second, I knew what I had found.
My mother and my father on one four-wheeler, shot to death,
and my nephew on another, shot to death.
It's funny what the mind will do, because at that point,
from the tip of my toes, I felt heat. It went from the tip of
my toes to the top of my head. I thought I was going to
explode. I realized many years later that I had gotten out of
that car that day, and I walked up to see my mother and my
father.
They were shot in the face. My father's head was gone; my
nephew Willie's face was gone. This man had killed my mother
and my father and my nephew, point-blank range. He shot them in
the face.
It has taken me 11 years, Mr. Ashcroft, to deal with this,
and as you can see, it's not easy. I work for the Postal
Service; I have for 11 years. I've lived in Shell Knob my whole
life, 38 years.
My grandfather homesteaded there at the turn of the
century. The Lawrences are well known, and have been since
1900. We are not a hard people to find. I have a commercial
business, along with my brothers and sisters there. So a phone
call would have helped.
And coming up to the commutation of Mr. Mease. The way I
found out about it was through a phone call. Like I said, I'm a
mail carrier, and I work many hours a day. I have my own
commercial business, so I work several hours through the day.
And when Mr. Mease was given this death sentence, I fully
expected it to be carried out.
It wasn't something that the family would talk about. We
wouldn't sit around and say this guy--oh, this guy is going to
die; we're going to get justice. This was a painful subject.
Our family did not wish to sit around and talk about it. It's
just something that you don't do. But we prepared for 11 years
that the sentence would be carried out.
I was a witness at the trial. I was the first witness on
the stand, and I sat there for a week. The first day I went in,
they give me some pictures of the crime scene. And we were
standing up there prior to the trial, and they asked me to
review these pictures. I did.
They handed me one picture of Willie, and they said Retha,
can you identify this? And I remember distinctly, I shoved the
picture back and I said, can you? So, I sat there at the trial,
and they handed me these pictures again, asking me to identify
Willie. As they passed me the pictures, they would take them
and pass them to the jurors. There was 12 jurors there who had
also sat there for a week.
And as the pictures was passed around, you could see they
would break down. They would break down, and you could see that
they was nauseated at what they had saw. So, they sat there for
a week, my family sat there for a week, all the law
enforcement, all the investigations that had gone on for a
year. And the one day, Mr. Ashcroft, one man took all of this
and put it in a waste can. And that's how we feel.
We feel that we're not that important. My family members
were ambushed. My family was ambushed the day of the
commutation. That's how we felt. When I learned of the
commutation, I was on my mail route. I was training a sub, and
my brother Dave called me on the cell phone. He said baby,
where are you? I said, I'm at the end of my route, and I'll be
coming in.
He said don't turn the radio on. He said there's something
I've got to tell you. Are you alone? No, my sub is with me. So,
he told me what had happened. And you just don't know what to
do, you know. Here you have this person with you that's so meek
and mild, my sub, and she said what's wrong?
And I just put my hand up, and I said I can't talk. And I
felt, Mr. Ashcroft, that very same way. I felt the heat from my
toes, and it went to the top of my head. Finally, I stopped the
truck, and just got out. I wanted to run. But there really
wasn't anyplace to go.
So, I came back and finished my route, and went to Dave's.
And from that point, for 2 weeks after, I had someone with me
for 24 hours. The media did call, and I said how did you get my
number? How did you find me? She said it only took about 5
minutes to get a hold of you. I said oh, OK, I was just
wondering because I had talked to the Governor's office, I
guess, 1 day or 2 later--time kind of got away from me; I
didn't really know.
But I had talked to the Governor's office, Mr. Bednar, I
guess was his name, I don't really remember--and he wanted to
apologize for not contacting us. He said, we've tried for
several months to get a hold of you. Well, I'm sorry, but
that's the lamest excuse I ever heard in my life.
Like I said before, we have commercial businesses. If he
had wanted a hair cut, if he had wanted carpets cleaned or his
mail delivered or even a bag of cotton candy, all he would have
had to do was pick up a phone. We didn't get that, and I feel
that we deserve that.
We deserve--here at this table, all of us deserve a little
bit of respect on that matter. It's bad enough to have to lose
a family member, three family members, any family members.
It's only human respect to be able to pick up a phone and
be able to show a little bit of human compassion instead of
saying, I didn't give it a second thought, Mr. Carnahan's
words.
Well, we've given it a second thought. We've thought about
it for 11 years. The book was almost closed; Mr. Mease was
going to be executed, and then for some unknown reason--who
knows--it was all put in the trash.
Our wounds were opened again, and I hope and I pray that it
doesn't take another 11 years for this to heal. As you can see,
my family has gone through hell for the last 11 years, and I
hope that through this meeting, this hearing, that no one will
have to go through this again.
I would beg and pray that we could at least get a phone
call. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Ashcroft.
Senator Ashcroft. I'm sure that every person appreciates
very much the fact that you would be willing to come and share
with us what is clearly a serious pain for you, and your
testimony just makes crystal clear the need to protect the
rights of crime victims.
And the Lawrence family's testimony demonstrates the need
to extend the protections in the proposed amendment to cover
commutations. What I heard you say is that commutation
needlessly had an effect that, because of the surprise of it,
was aggravated and intensified.
This is one of the issues that we'll take up when we mark
up this Bill at the executive business session committee on the
week of May 10. I have discussed, particularly, the commutation
matter, broadening the amendment to cover commutations with the
sponsors and Senator Kyl.
And Senator Kyl has indicated to me that he believes that
it should be broadened at the Federal level. And, of course, at
the Federal level it would cover these types of situations.
What is important about this hearing today is that when Senator
Kyl and I explain the need to extend the provisions of the
proposed amendment to commutations, your testimony, your
circumstances will support that effort and in real life terms,
will help Senators to understand why it's important to have
that extension.
So, we will try and keep you posted about the progress that
is made on this matter, and we will work on the development of
this improvement to the proposal, which I think in large
measure has been advanced by your own appearance and your
testimony.
The hearing will now take a short break, and I will escort
the first panel from the chamber, if they choose to leave. I
would ask that as I am doing that, the second panel assemble
and begin to get ready for the testimony when we reconvene in
about 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you for helping reconvene the
hearing. On our second panel, it's my pleasure to introduce a
group of notable individuals with direct awareness and
knowledge of this topic whose testimony should be valuable to
us in constructing and developing the improvements and
implementation of our effort to place before America an
opportunity to ratify an amendment regarding victim's rights.
Our first witness on this panel is Darrell Ashlock, who
serves as president of the Missouri Victim Assistance Network,
and also serves as Director of the Victim Services in Buchanan
County over on the western side of the State.
Mr. Ashlock was active in the drive to pass the Victims'
Rights Amendment, and has been helpful to me in my office in
dealing with crime and victim's issues. We're grateful to you
for your assistance, and we look forward to your testimony in
this respect. Mr. Ashlock.
PANEL CONSISTING OF DARRELL ASHLOCK, PRESIDENT, MISSOURI
VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE NETWORK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO; KIM LeBARON,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VICTIMS SUPPORT SERVICES, KIRKSVILLE, MO;
JOE TAYLOR, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, AID FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME,
ST. LOUIS, MO; JOE BEDNAR, LEGAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR, JEFFERSON CITY, MO; PAUL CASSELL, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, COLLEGE OF LAW, SALT LAKE CITY, UT
STATEMENT OF DARRELL ASHLOCK
Mr. Ashlock. The first thing I'd like to say is, my heart
goes out to those folks that went before us, and I've been
fortunate that I've never had to experience that type of pain,
and pray that those others who haven't experienced it don't
have to go through that. And my heart certainly goes out to
those folks.
I appreciate this opportunity to testify on this important
issue. As you said, I am president of the Missouri's Victims
Assistance Network here in Missouri. An acronym for that is
MoVA, and we'll use that from time to time. I was the founding
Board member, and served as cochairperson of MoVA when it was
organized in 1984, so we've been around awhile.
MoVA is a statewide organization, and its membership
represents 105 victim service agencies, including the State
Prosecuting Attorney's offices, law enforcement, rape crisis
centers, domestic violence shelters, Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers, Parents of Murdered Children, and general not-for-
profit agencies.
MoVA members drafted the Missouri's Crime Victims'
Constitutional Amendment, which went before the Missouri
legislature and was passed in 1991. In 1992, the voters of
Missouri passed the amendment by the largest majority of any
amendment in the history of the State of Missouri: 86 percent.
So, it's a very important issue to the voters in the State of
Missouri.
And I feel if we get the right amendment before the U.S.
Congress, we'll have an equal passage by the ratification of
the States. I understand that Senate Joint Resolution--we'll
refer to as the Constitutional Amendment for Crime Victims--is
pending before the Senate.
This testimony is meant to inform you that MoVA does not
support that amendment in its current form. We feel that S.J.
Res. 3 is too exclusive as currently written. Those who want to
limit this amendment to only those who are victims of violent
crime, we feel those folks are well-meaning, and we feel
probably some of the rationale is similar to what we heard in
the State of Missouri, that ``An overall inclusive amendment
would inundate the criminal justice system, slow down the
cases, thus further harming crime victims.''
I haven't been able to find an accurate source in the State
of Missouri to accurately reflect all the crime victims. I went
to the publication put out by the Missouri Highway Patrol which
just lists index crimes, and index crimes only include eight
crimes, but I kind of wanted to give you a feel for those
crimes. Like I said they still leave out a lot of crimes.
The index crimes include only eight crimes: murder,
forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft,
motor vehicle, and arson. As you can tell by the list, it
includes only crimes in which there are victims, and even that
list is limited.
There were 245,909 total index crimes in 1997, which is the
latest year that's available for those figures. Violent crimes
accounted for 28,962 or roughly 11.7 percent of all crimes in
the State of Missouri.
Therefore, the victims of 11.7 percent of all crimes would
have the rights granted under S.J. Res. 3 as it's currently
written. The other 88.3 percent would not have those rights,
those rights including: reasonable notice of, and not to be
excluded from any public proceedings relating to the crime; the
right to be heard and present and submit a statement at all
such proceedings to determine a conditional release from
custody, acceptance of a negotiated plea or sentence;
the foregoing rights of parole hearings that is not public
to the extent that these rights are afforded the convicted
offender; to reasonable notice of a release or escape from
custody related to crime; to consideration of interest of the
victim that any trial be free from unreasonable delay; to an
order of restitution from the convicted offender; and to
consideration for the safety of the victim when determining any
conditionable release from custody relating to the crime.
That's what's currently in S.J. Res. 3. But, again, it's
limited only to the victims of violent crime.
Let me share with you some of Missouri's experience since
our Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment passed, and our
Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment isn't all inclusive.
It's noted as being one of the stronger Constitutional
amendments in the United States.
Let me start off by saying my position as president of MoVA
is a volunteer position. My full-time position, the one in
which I make my living at, is Director of the Victim/Witness
Services for the Buchanan County Prosecuting Attorney's Office,
which is the state's attorney.
My staff viewed all the cases prosecuted by our office, and
I'll share some of those results with you. Thirty-nine percent
of all cases filed by our office involve an identifiable victim
other than the State of Missouri. Thirty-nine percent of all
cases filed by our office have identifiable victims other than
the State of Missouri.
Victims representing 13.6 percent of all cases filed
participate by requesting to be informed or be present at court
proceedings. OK, of all cases, only 13.6 percent request the
rights or are required under ours, because if it's a case
that's a dangerous felony, which is a more serious violent
crime, they are to be afforded those rights automatically.
Senator Ashcroft. May I just ask, is it 13.6 percent of the
39 percent?
Mr. Ashlock. No, it's 13.6 of all the crimes.
Senator Ashcroft. So, it's about a third of the crimes with
which you can associate a victim?
Mr. Ashlock. Yes. About a third of the crimes in which we
file charges, about a third of them have victims other than the
State of Missouri
Senator Ashcroft. But I mean, is it 13 percent of the 39
percent?
Mr. Ashlock. No, 13 percent of----
Senator Ashcroft. 13 is a third of 39, that's what you are
saying?
Mr. Ashlock. That's right.
By Missouri statute, notification is mandated to all crime
victims--all victims of what we call dangerous felonies.
Violent crime requiring crime notification in our office
account for only 5 percent of the crimes that are filed by our
office. Again, that's 100 percent of all crimes that are filed.
You will note in my written testimony, I've included a copy
of a checkoff form that we send to all crime victims when cases
are filed, to make it easy on them if they want to be notified,
if they want to be present and so on. All they have to do is
check this off, and we will provide a stamped, self-addressed
envelope for them to send it back in.
We make it as easy as possible for them, and still we're at
that 13.6 percent who elect to participate. I've surveyed other
prosecutors' offices in the State, and the highest percentage
that I can find of any prosecutor's office was about 20 percent
of the victims who want to participate in the system at that
time.
Today is the last day of National Victims' Rights Week.
This year's theme is ``Victims Voice Is Silent No More.'' If
S.J, Res. 3 is passed in its current form, a vast majority of
crime victims will continue to be kept silent by the very
justice system which is supposed to act in their behalf.
The second argument that extending victim rights will slow
down the system is also false. Our experience has shown that
those 13.6 percent to 20 percent of all crime victims choosing
to participate, as long as they have been properly notified has
not slowed down our system at all. And I kind of wish we had
more witnesses here. We could bring in some of our judges to
testify to that, too. It does not slow down the system.
Another issue MoVA feels the Subcommittee should consider,
which is lacking in S.J. Res. 3, is recourse. MoVA's amendment
also lacks recourses. Large jurisdictions in Missouri have
implemented, if not all, a majority of the Crime Victims'
Constitutional amendment. But there are still some individual
prosecutors, judges, and juvenile courts that ignore the
amendment that the statutes mandate in the State of Missouri.
The worst offenders are the third and fourth class counties,
the rural areas.
In 1997, MoVA, with the assistance of the Department of
Corrections, conducted a survey of victims of violent crime,
and the status of victims' participation in the criminal
justice system since the passage of Crime Victims'
Constitutional Amendment. Of all those surveyed--all those
surveyed were victims of violent crime. The results of this
survey indicated that the change since the implementation of
the Constitutional Amendment was so slight that the researchers
could not rule out that it occurred only by chance.
Until Missouri enacts legislative recourse measures,
criminal justice officials who currently deny the
Constitutional rights will continue to do so. Do not make the
same mistake that we did here in Missouri, by not including
recourse for crime victims.
It's cruel to tell crime victims they have rights, but to
continue to deny them. I've also included as an attachment a
copy of the research from our office so you can see the type of
crimes and so on that we deal with. Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft. Well, thank you very much for your
contribution to our awareness of this issue in two areas: one,
in terms of the breadth of the criminal activity covered, and
second, in terms of the enforceability of any item, which you
call recourse, which I think is appropriate.
Next, we have Kim LeBaron, who is executive director of the
Victims Support Services in Kirksville, MO. Her organization
provides assistance to victims of domestic abuse. I'm pleased
to have Ms. LeBaron here today, and to welcome her insights
into how we should be dealing with victims' rights in the
context of domestic abuse.
Ms. LeBaron.
STATEMENT OF KIM LEBARON
Ms. LeBaron. Thank you, Senator. I'm speaking to you today
as a person who has dealt with the effects of domestic violence
for all of her life. I grew up in a family where domestic
violence was a daily part of our living. I am very lucky
because domestic violence was not a generational part of my
family history.
My mother had the knowledge to impart to me that living
with the fear our family lived with was not my only choice. I
have not repeated or continued the cycle of violence in my own
family, but I have chosen this to be my life's work.
I work at Victims Support Services in Kirksville, MO. Our
agency, located in the northeast part of the State, serves
seven rural counties, and has been serving all victims of
violent crime, including domestic violence and sexual assault,
for over 10 years.
Every single day, I talk with women and children about
their lives and living in fear, living with that fear in their
own homes. I think all of us would agree, the one place you
should feel safest and most cared for is in our own homes. In
our society, we have come to recognize that domestic violence
is something that can happen to anyone. It knows no
discrimination.
What we haven't achieved is a consistent way for these same
victims to have a voice that is heard. Victims have voices that
can offer us much needed insight to changes that must happen
within our system. They want to feel that justice will have a
positive effect on their situation.
I look at what we're doing in northeast Missouri, and I
know that it is not enough. We have many supporters of our
program, both from the professional sector and private
citizens. This is not enough. We must have laws that protect
victims of violent crimes and assure them they will receive
fair and equitable treatment under Federal law. Laws that will
not make them feel like they're the least important part of the
criminal justice system.
I have yet to meet a victim of violent crime who ever
expected to find themselves with this label. This also includes
every victim of domestic violence. Even when I interview women
who have long histories of violence, where they can tell about
several generations of abuse, they will tell me that they truly
believed their life would be different.
They are disappointed by their reality. I feel it is
imperative that we treat all crime victims consistently with a
professional and caring approach. No matter what the crime is,
including domestic violence, no one deserves or asks to be a
victim.
I recently worked with a victim who applied for and
received an ex parte order against her husband. She requested
the city marshal to accompany her to her home to retrieve some
uniforms so she could continue to work. When they arrived at
her home, they found the husband there.
He proceeded to threaten to kill her and to kill every
other person in the shelter to get their daughter back. He went
into great detail about the plan he wanted to implement. The
city marshal told the victim he didn't know what to do about
the threats because he didn't have much experience with these
types of situations.
Fortunately, a State highway patrol officer stopped at the
scene and arrested the man for violation of his ex parte order
and assault. He then was transported to a county jail where he
was released until Wednesday because the judge was out of town.
This happened on a Saturday evening.
This man who was so angry, who threatened to kill several
people in the presence of two law enforcement officers, was
immediately released from custody and told to wait until
Wednesday to be officially arrested. This caused us to move
this client to another shelter 90 miles away, and hire two off-
duty police officers to stay in the shelter for protection of
our other clients and staff.
Then, on the day there should have been a hearing regarding
this violation and assault charge, no witnesses were
subpoenaed, including our client. I went to court to observe,
and it was quite clear the intent was just to dismiss this
case.
There was no notification given to this victim regarding
any part of this criminal justice process, even though the
prosecutor was notified in writing that this victim wanted to
be notified. This batterer received a very clear message to
continue conducting his business as usual.
I live in a rural area where everybody knows everybody, so
there often is much disbelief that John Doe could hurt his
family, or there is a general laissez faire attitude with
people saying things like oh, he can't help it, he's just like
his dad. They're reluctant to agree to testify during
prosecution because everybody knows nothing will happen.
In my city, fewer than 25 percent of domestic cases where
charges were brought were disposed of in 1998. In the majority
of these cases, the defendant received a suspended imposition
of sentence or 1 to 2 years of unsupervised probation. The most
severe sentence received was 30 days incarceration in the
county jail.
The message that domestic violence is a violent crime must
be clear to all people and the remedies available under the law
be afforded to all victims, even when they live in rural areas.
They must be treated consistently with laws that will ensure
all levels of our judicial system will respond in a timely and
just manner.
I not only believe that we need the Constitutional
amendment, but it must also contain the proper language to
ensure victims that if they are not being afforded their rights
in the judicial system, there is a process to hold those who
violate their rights accountable for their indifference. I
would urge you to consider that a very clear penalty be
included so victims who are revictimized will be offered
relief.
In closing, I find it difficult to find words that are
powerful enough to convey to you how strongly victims feel
about their need to be treated fairly and consistently within
the judicial system. Just as important, they need to be treated
with the dignity and respect that would be afforded to them by
this Constitutional amendment. Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft. Well, thank you very much. The ideals of
fairness and consistency I think are very important in the
sense that we all want to be able to understand that we are
part of the rule of law, and that it is not capricious. Any
disparity between rural and urban settings would be similarly
unnerving.
Thank you for your testimony.
Joe Taylor is the president of the Board of Aid for Victims
of Crime. He's a partner of the Taylor and Taylor law firm,
which represents victims of crime.
Aid to Victims of Crime is one of the oldest not-for-profit
organizations helping victims in the Nation, and we're grateful
for your appearance here. Thank you for your willingness to
come and help us better understand how we might address these
issues.
STATEMENT OF JOE TAYLOR
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Senator.
I'm proud to be here this morning representing an
institution that has helped thousands of people regain dignity
they lost due to a criminal act.
Aid For Victims of Crime was the first victims assistance
program founded in this country. Carol Vittert, our founder and
current Board member, began what is now known as Aid for
Victims of Crime by gathering daily police reports from local
law enforcement. She and other volunteers would go knock on the
doors of crime victims, reaching out to their needs.
Aid for Victims of Crime now plays an integral role in
victims services locally, regionally, State, and nationwide.
Each year AVC serves between 1,500 and 2,000 victims of crime
in the St. Louis area. The range of services available is so
broad, and often requiring improvisation, they cannot be
sufficiently cataloged in this forum.
However, by way of example, I would like to describe how
AVC responded to two victims who called the agency for help.
These illustrations are relevant to the hearing this morning as
they involve victims of nonviolent crime.
A woman in her 30's, a professional woman, contacted AVC
after her home was burglarized. AVC staff went to her house
with plywood and nails to temporarily secure the broken window
through which the intruder entered. Staff noticed that the
victim was physically shaking as if she had been victimized by
violent crime.
AVC staff offered her services as if she had been
victimized by violent crime. The victim told Ed Stout, our
executive director, that this invasion was the closest thing to
her being raped as she ever could imagine experiencing.
In another instance, an educated woman and neighborhood
leader from North St. Louis was cheated out of several thousand
dollars by two men who talked her into investing in a ``no-
lose'' situation. She almost immediately realized she had been
deceived and reported the crime. During the ensuing criminal
prosecution, Aid for Victims of Crime staff pursued restitution
on her behalf.
The victim did not know she might be entitled to such a
remedy, but due to the embarrassment and guilt she felt for
allowing herself to be so deceived, she probably would have
never asked to what, if anything, she was entitled.
Regionally, AVC staff initiated and now actively correlates
a three-county crises response team that organized services of
20 agencies when responding to crises in the workplace, in
neighborhoods, and in corporations of all sizes. This crisis
response team supplied valuable services to help our community,
the campus of Washington University, and family members deal
with the trauma of Melissa Aptman's brutal murder and her
friend's abduction and unspeakable attack in May 1995.
The same crisis response team also responded to the
suffering of St. Louis employees of TWA in the aftermath of the
crash of Flight 800 en route to Paris in 1996.
Statewide, AVC participated and is active in the MoVA, the
Missouri Victims' Assistance Network, which has been
instrumental in making victims part of the criminal justice
system, rather than an appendage to the system. MoVA, as was
already testified to, was integral in supporting and passing
the 1992 amendment to the Missouri Constitution guaranteeing
rights in this State.
Finally, nationally, AVC have been active and well
represented on the Board of NOVA, the National Organization for
Victims' Assistance. NOVA's accomplishments are just too
numerous to address here today.
I would like to recognize Ed Stout, our Executive Director,
for his never-ending efforts to restore dignity to all those
victimized by crime.
Senator Ashcroft. Is Mr. Stout here?
Mr. Taylor. He is not able to be with us today. He is out
of town.
Senator Ashcroft. If he were, I would have asked him to
stand up.
Mr. Taylor. Right. If asked, few, if any, would report
being against victims' rights in theory. There are many,
however, that oppose extending Constitutionally recognized
rights to victims of nonviolent crimes for fear that the
already overloaded criminal justice system would grind to a
halt if these victims were allowed to participate and to
receive reasonable notice of criminal proceedings.
This attitude is often heard by victims of nonviolent
crimes as the system telling them, of course we support
victims' rights, as long as they don't get in our way. The
uncomfortable truth, however, is that this attitude adds to the
trauma already suffered by the victim. All too often, the
victims of nonviolent crime suffer the same type and intensity
of trauma as those victimized by rape, robbery, and assault.
These victims will perceive the crime against them as life-
threatening. Burglaries, for instance, can shatter the family
fabric. Their victims are infused with feelings of
vulnerability and fear for years beyond the actual crime.
``What if'' questions overflow their thoughts. What if my
family had returned home too early? What if they come back?
How many times have we heard of the devastation caused by
the likes of telemarketing fraud committed against our elderly,
as you spoke of earlier? These crimes go far beyond the
financial losses alone.
The victims' fears must be heard over those whose fears are
simply an inconvenience to our justice system. Fundamental
rights do not come free. Ask anyone who has ever fought for the
right to vote or for the right to simply be free of oppression.
Rights do not come without pain and sacrifice.
Moreover, those anxious individuals opposed to guaranteeing
the rights of all victims are not considering the success in
those States that have. Reports from the States where victims'
rights amendments have been implemented show that the system is
not bogged down as a result. And, in fact, the system may
become more efficient because those victims whose rights are
being honored are inherently going to be more cooperative and
responsive to the system's needs.
A constitutional amendment is not taken lightly by our
Government or by those governed. Victims of all crimes have
earned basic fundamental rights, and victims of nonviolent
crime represent over 80 percent of all crime victims.
If we only guarantee those rights for the vast minority of
crime victims, we will only engender a greater lack of respect
for the criminal judicial system by those precluded from
participation. Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you very much.
Senator Ashcroft. Our next witness is Joseph Bednar. Mr.
Bednar is the chief counsel for the Governor of Missouri.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BEDNAR
Mr. Bednar. Good morning, and thank you, Senator, for
inviting me to testify.
My name is Joe Bednar, chief counsel for Governor Mel
Carnahan. Before that I was an attorney in private practice.
I'm also the former chief assistant prosecutor in Jackson
County. In recent news accounts, your spokesman has raised a
question about the status of Missouri victims' rights laws.
I'm pleased to be here today to update you and your
committee on the status of our law. It is important to remember
that for every crime, there is a victim who will feel the
crime's impact for a long time to come. Governor Carnahan
recognizes the importance with the aftermath of crime and with
helping victims recover. Working with the law enforcement
community and the advocates for victims, we have made a
tremendous amount of progress on the behalf of crime victims.
In 1993, the Governor supported and signed into law House
bill 476 and Senate bill 19. House bill 476 increases
protection for victims of stalking and makes stalking a crime.
Senate bill 19 expands the rights of victims, including the
right to more information: About the crime, about charges filed
against the offender, hearing dates, court dates, sentencing
and probation revocation hearings, and commutation.
In 1994, the Governor supported and signed into law Senate
bill 554, which extended victims' rights to include the rights
to be notified and present at each and every phase of parole
hearings. In 1995, House bill 174 and House bill 232 were
signed and supported by the Governor. House bill 174 increased
the amount a crime victim could receive for counseling.
House bill 232 requires the courts of Missouri to honor
adult protective orders issued in other States and registered
in Missouri. The Governor also supported and signed House bill
104 in 1997, which expanded the statute of limitations for
sexual offenses against people under the age of 18 to 10 years
after the victim reaches the age of 18. In 1998, the Governor
supported and signed House bill 1405, House bill 1918, and
Senate bill 722.
House bill 1405 mandates that the Attorney General inform
victims of sexually violent offenses of all actions regarding
civil commitments of sexually violent predators. Senate bill
722 prohibits insurers from discriminating against victims of
domestic violence. House bill 1918 establishes a minimum
sentence for persons proven to be prior or persistent domestic
violent offenders, and allows the admissions of prior
convictions into order to demonstrate a history or pattern of
domestic violence.
Governor Carnahan has also taken administrative actions
that has focused much needed attention on victims' rights.
Under the Governor's direction, the office of Victims' Service
Coordinator to provide services, notification and information
to victims of crime in Missouri. And even though no action is
required by law for victims of crimes that occurred prior to
1991, our Corrections Department went through 21,000 of those
pre-1991 files and contacted the prosecuting attorneys across
the State to seek information on those victims.
Ours is one of only three States that actively seeks out
victim information. Legally, victims of dangerous felons are
supposed to be notified of certain information regarding
offenders. However, the law allows States to play a rather
passive role in how it obtains the names of the victims. In
Missouri, we actively seek to identify victims by sending
inquiry letters to prosecutors.
This year, the Carnahan administration invested the largest
amount of funds in our States' history for services that
support crime victims. That funding represents a 230 percent
increase since 1992. Also, the Carnahan administration was the
first to dedicate general revenue funds for services for
domestic violence victims, funds that you vetoed during your
term.
In fact, our efforts to assist the families of crime
victims date back to January 1993, when the Board of Probation
and Parole made the first effort to contact the family members
of two homicide victims. You may not recall the details,
Senator, but you commuted the sentences of the defendants in
those two cases, yet made no effort to contact the families of
those victims. You and your staff are quick to point out our
deficiencies in this area, but you did the exact same thing as
Governor.
The only difference, Senator, is that we made the effort.
We didn't know they existed. We tried to contact them. We tried
to find out if there were relatives; we were told there were
none. It was a human error. I say this not because I want to be
here to take you or anyone else to task for this. We are all
imperfect human beings.
I say it because it's obvious that you created this forum
not so much to learn about the needs of crime victims, but for
the purpose of exploring a controversial decision and related
human error by the Carnahan administration to further your own
reelection campaign. I believe it is not only unjust and
inappropriate, but it is also a disservice to the cause of
crime victims' rights, which I personally worked on for 26
years and continue to work on today.
Let me address the Mease and Lawrence case. Specifically,
Governor Carnahan believes very strongly that victims' families
need to be notified, and they were not, in this instance,
solely because of human error, not because the law didn't
require it.
On behalf of the Governor, I apologized to the family
members I could reach the day after the commutation, and I
apologize again today. This is especially troubling to me. As a
former prosecutor, I was an advocate for the victims of crime,
and I made victims advocacy a priority during my time in
Jackson County. We deeply regret the mistake and are committed
to ensuring that it never happens again. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
Senator Ashcroft. Our next witness is Professor Cassell,
Professor of Law at the University of Utah College of Law, and
very active in working for Federal protection for victims. He
has worked closely with Senators Kyl and Feinstein on their
proposed Amendment, and has testified numerous times in support
of the Amendment.
Professor Cassell is testifying here at the request of both
Senator Kyl of Arizona and of me, and I would like to welcome
Professor Cassell to the St. Louis area and welcome his
testimony at this time.
STATEMENT OF PAUL CASSELL
Mr. Cassell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here on behalf of the National Victims' Constitutional Network,
which is an umbrella organization of victims' groups around the
country that are concerned with the Constitutional protection
of victims' rights.
Senate Joint Resolution 3 is strongly supported by the
great bulk of network's members, including some of the Nation's
oldest and most prominent crime victims organizations; members
such as the National Organization for Victims' Assistance,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Parents of Murdered
Children.
Now, in possible contrast to the previous speaker, we very
much appreciate the Chairman setting up this forum,
particularly in this historic building, and indeed on this very
day. May 1, as the Senator may know, is Law Day, the day
Congress has set aside to reflect on the way in which our legal
system works.
And today, unfortunately, while our Federal Constitution
contains numerous rights for those who commit acts of violence,
it contains no rights for those who have been victimized.
Around the country, there is a growing appreciation of that
imbalance and the need to remedy it. We need to do something--
or do something for victims of crimes.
Thirty-one States, including the State of Missouri, have
amended their own State constitutions to protect the rights of
crime victims, and every State has adopted statutes extending
some form of protection to victims. Now, victim participation
in the criminal justice process serves a number of important
interests: Crime victims can provide criminal justice
decisionmakers with important information about the full extent
of the damage from criminal violence.
Victim participation can often have important cathartic
effect, helping victims move forward with their lives after the
devastation caused by crime. Anita Lawrence, for example, I
thought this morning put it well when she talked about how
proper participation can help victims close the book on one
chapter in their lives and move forward.
And finally, allowing victims to participate is consistent
with our ideas of fundamental justice. As President Clinton put
it in endorsing the Federal Victims' Rights Amendment, when
someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the
criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.
Now, one question about victim participation that has
apparently arisen recently is the extent to which crime victims
should participate in and be notified of executive clemency
decisions. I don't want to comment on the specifics of any
commutation decision, but instead try and step back and provide
a more objective view as to how victims should be integrated
into the clemency process.
I think earlier this morning, Chairman Ashcroft, you hit
the nail on the head when you said that given the widespread
recognition of the importance of victim participation in
earlier stages of the process, that it makes no sense to deny
them the opportunity to be involved at the ultimate step in the
process. Throughout this Nation, States have tried to make--
ensure that victims can have a say before a defendant is
released on bail or given an unduly lenient plea bargain.
States have also tried to make sure victims can attend
trials to see that justice is being served. And victims
throughout the country now have an opportunity to provide a
victim impact statement when an offender is sentenced or when a
possible parole is being considered. Given all these efforts to
involve victims from the start of the criminal justice process,
it makes no sense to exclude them from the last step, a
Governor's decision to grant or not to grant a prisoner's
application for clemency.
Victims deserve the right to be heard at this stage, not to
have a veto over the Governor's decision, but rather to provide
a voice, to provide information about the full harm of the
crime that the Governor can consider in reaching his or her
decision. Similarly, victims deserve to be notified of any
decision the Governor might reach so that they are not
surprised and traumatized by unexpectedly learning of a
commutation. No family should be ambushed by a decision, as
Retha Lawrence so eloquently put it this morning.
Now, many States, particularly in recent years, have passed
statutes that requiring that victims be informed of clemency
applications, and be given a fair opportunity to comment on
them. Along these lines, it may well be desirable to amend
Senate Joint Resolution 3 to extend these rights to victims,
and my prepared testimony providing some possible language for
doing just that.
Senate Joint Resolution 3 already contains an extensive
list of rights for crime victims, including the right to be
notified of court and parole proceedings, and to be heard at
appropriate points in the process. These are rights not to be
victimized again through the process by which Government
officials prosecute, punish, and release accused and convicted
offenders.
These are the very kinds of rights with which our
Constitution is typically and properly concerned. Rights of
individuals to participation in all those governmental
processes that strongly affect their lives. Now as you would
expect with the proposed Federal Constitutional Amendment,
Senate Joint Resolution 3 is a product of consensus; it's
crafted to try to attract the super majority that will be
necessary in Congress to send the measure to the States.
For example, Senate Joint Resolution 3 extends rights to
victims of crimes of violence a narrower formulation than when
first introduced. It is important to understand that crimes of
violence, as used in Senate Joint Resolution 3, is a broad
phrase that includes crimes with the potential for violence.
For example, courts have frequently held that burglaries of
homes are crimes of violence because of the potential for armed
or dangerous conflict.
And thus, Senate Joint Resolution 3 would cover one of the
situations that Mr. Taylor talked about earlier this morning,
and also, Mr. Ashlock's numbers may need to be revised slightly
to reflect the definition used in Senate Joint Resolution 3 is
somewhat broader than narrower definitions used by other
criminal justice agencies. Now, of course, in considering this
issue, we cannot rely simply on numbers. Some crimes have more
serious consequences than others, as the testimony from Carol
Angelbeck, Mata Weber, and the Lawrence family this morning
eloquently demonstrated. Violent crimes cover the vast bulk of
cases in which victims' rights seriously are at issue.
The National Organization for Victims' Assistance,
mentioned by Mr. Taylor, mentioned, for example, has estimated
for of the thousands of calls that come in to its toll free
800-number every year, more than 95 percent are from victims of
violence. Now to be sure, it would be desirable to extend
Senate Joint Resolution 3 that extra 5 percent to cover those
crimes beyond those of violence.
But here it's important not to let the perfect become the
enemy of the good. It appears that insisting on coverage of all
crimes will destroy the consensus that surrounds Senate Joint
Resolution 3 and prevent the passage of any Constitutional
amendment.
The better course, obviously, is to pass Senate Joint
Resolution 3, which will protect the rights of violent crime
victims and improve the climate in the criminal justice system
for all victims. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cassell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3523.031
Senator Ashcroft. Well, let me thank all of you for coming
and for adding your voices to what I think is a near unanimous
understanding that a federal amendment to protect the victims
of crime would be helpful.
Professor Cassell, are there times when the state
amendments and the State provisions come into conflict with
Federal laws that result in, basically, the evisceration of the
State's efforts. Does that provide a basis for requiring the
additional protection of a uniform Federal Amendment to the
Constitution?
Mr. Cassell. What we've seen--and I say ``we'' as victim
advocates--is the situation recurring over and over again that
a defense attorney or defendant will make some claim that I
have a Federal right to Due Process, and therefore, you can't
do whatever the victim is requesting. In my view, those
conflicts are illusory, that there is really no zero sum gain
here.
We can give rights to victims and give rights to
defendants, and Senate Joint Resolution 3 does not take rights
away from criminal defendants. The problem, however, is that
because of this perceived conflict and the certain imbalance
that you mentioned, that defendant's rights are here in the
Federal, while victims rights are, at best, down here in the
State Constitutions, that defendant's rights have been trumped
and created problems of enforcement throughout the country.
Senator Ashcroft. Mr. Ashlock, have you had any problems
like that here?
Mr. Ashlock. I have not seen any conflicts with Federal
laws. We enjoy a good relationship in our little corner of the
state up there.
Senator Ashcroft. Do defense attorneys ever object to the
presence of a victim in a room while other testimony is
undertaken?
Mr. Ashlock. In our jurisdiction when they've objected, the
judges have overruled. But in other jurisdictions of the state,
victims sometimes are continued to be kept out of the
courtroom.
Senator Ashcroft. Ms. LeBaron, I see you nodding your head
on this.
Mr. Ashlock. It's not by statute; it's by rule of the
Court. Our stand is, the Constitution is a little higher than
the rule of the Court.
Ms. LeBaron. We had that happen this week in a murder trial
that was going on in Kirksville. They subpoenaed the mother of
the murdered victim, and she was unable to be in the courtroom
for a period of time, so we see it happening.
Mr. Ashlock. In our experience, we've had it happen,
there's not been a problem; there's not been someone who has
complained afterwards that the victim witness was able to use
what they heard in the courtroom, which is always the complaint
for barring witnesses out of the courtroom. So we just haven't
had a problem with that happening. And as I said, it's our view
of it that that's included in our Constitutional Amendment.
But there are some jurisdictions in the state of Missouri
that continue to keep victims out, and oftentimes, what we
found, prior to Constitutional Amendment and even now, is that
you've got defense attorneys subpoenaing someone they have
absolutely no hope of calling as a witness; they just don't
want them in the courtroom.
Senator Ashcroft. I want to thank you all for coming today.
I believe that today's hearing will be extremely helpful to the
Subcommittee, and to the Judiciary Committee as a whole as we
proceed to mark up the proposed Amendment in the few days that
are coming ahead.
This morning's hearing demonstrates to me both the need for
a Federal role in the protection of victims' rights, as well as
some ways that the present proposal may be improved. So, I
thank you for your participation, and I now adjourn the meeting
of the Subcommittee.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]