UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
INTRODUCTION
American legal background
1.
Legal system: The United States has a common law system. This system, defined
by the doctrine of precedent, operates where the courts follow the decisions of
higher courts within the same jurisdictio n.
Federal courts have exclusive
jurisdiction over certain types of cases and share jurisdiction with state courts in
other instances. State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the majority of cases.
Both federal and state courts arbiter some criminal cases, but the supreme law of
the land is the federal Constitution. The 6 t h amendment to the U.S. Constitution
guarantees certain rights related to criminal prosecutions and the 14 t h amendment
protects these rights under the due process clause . 1 In these trials, the jury is the
trier of fact. Parties are entitled to a jury trial for criminal proceedings if those
parties face a penalty of at least six month s imprisonment. This right extends to
state courts. In the 1970 case of Williams v. Florida the Supreme Court ruled juries
as small as six were sufficient, but that these juries are required to reach a
unanimous decision. 2 Criminal juries are typically made up of twelve members as
outlined in the Constitution and are not required to achieve unanimity.
2.
Victim definition: A ‘crime victim’ was defined in the 2004 Crime Victims ’ Rights
Act as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a
federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. 3 The law ensures basic
rights afforded to victims in federa l criminal cases. For the provision of services,
the Department of Justice defines a victim as a person that has suffered direct
physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime. 4
While some state jurisdictions have other defin itions that include victims of
misdemeanor and/or felony crimes, most jurisdictions restrict victim status to
persons who are harmed by certain types of offenses —such as violent crimes or sex
offenses.
‘Crime victims’ are treated differently, though acknowledged, in both
criminal and civil cases. In the case U.S. v. Moussaoui an appellate court argued that
See Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 US 213 (1967)
Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970)
3 Crime Vicitm’s Rights Act, 18 USC 3771
4 Services to victims, 42 USC 10607 (e) (2). Also see, Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness
Assistance (2005); Office of Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs; US Depeartment of Justice. (42 USC
10607 (e) (2))
1
2
the CRVA offered ‘no support for the district’s courts order’ which demanded the
U.S. government to provide non -public discovery materials from a criminal trial for
the purpose of a district courts civil suits. The rights in the CRVA are limited to
the criminal justice process and ‘therefore silent and unconcerned with victims’
rights to file civil claims against their assailants.’ 5 The Crime Victims’ Rights Act
(CRVA) also details the alternative persons who may assume the rights of an
incapacitated victim. By this definition a ‘person’s family member or other lawful
representative’ meets the definition of the term ‘crime victim’. 6 Statute 42 U.S.C.
10607(e) includes ‘an institutional entity’ in its definition of ‘crime victim’ which
could allow organizations and companies to have rights under the CRVA. 7
3.
Lodging criminal complaints: A criminal complaint in the United States is a
written statement of the essential facts made under oath before a magistrate judge
or, if none are reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer. 8 The
complaint and supporting materials may be submitted by telephone or reli able
electronic means, but a judicial officer must administer the oath or a ffirmation
when made by telephone. 9 Under the Supreme Court 1957 ruling Reid v. Covert, the
United States cannot preempt international treaties over Constitutional rule and
therefore there are not particular conditions applicable only to international
crimes. 10 The United States has incorporated international law into criminal law
through legislation covering genocide, war crimes, torture, piracy, slavery, and
trafficking in women and children. 11 The United States is not a member of the
International Criminal Court and has, in effect, conditionall y accepted international
treaties so that the process by which criminal complaints are lodged would not
change.
4.
Private prosecution: In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals generally
did not have the right to private prosecution in federal court of criminal charges. 12
One exception is in the case of employees of the federal government who are
U.S. v. Moussaoui, 483 F3d 220; 234-35 (4th Cir. 2007). See also Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of Calif.,
435 F3d 1011, 1015-16 (9th Cir 2006) (Kenna I).
6 Crime Vicitm’s Rights Act, 18 USC 3771 (2) (d).
7 Services to victims, 42 USC 10607 (e) (2) (b)
8 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure T 2. R 3. See also Power of courts and magistrates, 18 USC 3041; United
States. v. Simon (E.D.Pa.); 248 F980; United States v. Maresca (SDNY)
9 2011 Amendment, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure T 2. R 3.
10 Reid v. Covert (1957), 354 US 1.
11 See Bassiouni, M. Cherif, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice; Oxford University Press, 2014;
Scheffer, David J., “The United States and the International Criminal Court’, The American Journal of International Law
Vol 93, No 1 (Jan., 1999) pp. 12-22.
12 Leeke v. Timmerman (1981), 452 US 83; Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973), 410 US 614.
5
granted this right through statute law. Add itionally, in 1987 the Supreme C ourt
ruled that federal courts can appoint private attorneys to prosecute a crimi nal case
if the executive branch refuses to do so. 13 At the state level, many state courts and
legislatures have effectively banned private prosecutions of criminal cases. Several
states, such as the state of Virginia which incorporated private prosecutio n into its
common law, maintain the right for private citizens to pursue criminal charges. 14
QUESTION 1: IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION, CASE LAW
AND POLICY DOCUMENTS, DOES YOUR JURISDICTION PROVIDE
FOR VICTIM PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR
ALL ALLEGED VICTIMS IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FORMS?
5.
All states, tribal jurisdictions, and the federal government have passed laws
providing for victims’ rights in criminal proceedings.
Varied state and tribal
definitions of victims’ rights determine what protections are provided, whether
individuals are entitled to compensation and when, and who is able to be
considered a victim of a crime.
Statutory victims’ rights, state constitutional
victims’ rights, and other means of establishing precedent vary acro ss jurisdictions.
California, in 1982, became the first state to provide for victims’ rights in their
state constitution. 15 The protection of victims’ rights also vary based on the crime,
with many jurisdictions only providing for certain victims’ rights in the case of
violent crimes. Provisions of the United States Constitution and Supreme Court
rulings have established the strongest protections for victims’ rights.
6.
When an alleged victim files a complaint at any level of jurisdiction, under the
Sixth Amendment, counsels have a duty ‘make reasonable investigations or to make
a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary’. 16 In the
1932 case Powell v. Alabama, scholars have argued that the concept of counsel is
based in the right to due process in proceedings nor encompassed by analysis of
the Sixth Amendment.
Under this right to due process, alleged victims can be
entitled the assistance of counsel depending on what the ‘particular situation
demands’. 17 If it is determined that an individual is entitled to counsel in a
Young v. U.S. ex. rel. Vuitton et Fils (1987), 481 US 787.
Cantrell v. Commonwealth (Va 1985), 328 S E 2d 22, 25. See 9 Harv J L & pub Pol’y 357 (1986) ‘Crime Victim in the
Prosecutorial Process’; Cardenas, Juan for account of how Virginia common law developed.
15 Marsy Rights, CAL PEN CODE 679.026.
16 McMann v. Richardson (1970) 39 US 959, 771 n 14.
17 Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 US 319, 334.
13
14
jurisdiction, the duty to investigate is the standard by which effective assistance of
counsel is held by the 1984 Supreme Court ruling Strickland v. Washington. 18
7.
An alleged victim, if the police or law enforcement refuses or neglects to
investigate, can make complaints to the Department of Justice. Federal laws that
address police misconduct cover the action of state, county, and local jurisdictions.
Under the ‘Police Misconduct Provision’, the Department of Justice must recognize
‘pattern or practice’ of neglect or refusal of investigation in order to unilaterally
investigate. 19 The Department of Justice does not provide legal advice, act as a
victim’s lawyer, nor guarantee that they will inform an alleged victim of the
outcome of a police misconduct investigation. If a federal criminal enforcement
law is being violated, in this case under police misconduct provisions, than it is
punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. However, only the Department of Justice
may file suit for violations of the police misconduct provisions. 20
A private
attorney is unable to bring a complaint on behalf of an alleged victim if the police
neglects to investigate a crime.
8.
Passive rights: The Crime Victims’ Rights Act provides for eight basic rights
afforded to victims of federal crimes. Alleged victims (AVs) have the right to be
reasonably protected from the accused.
AVs have the right to be re asonably
notified of parole proceedings and anything involve the crime, release, or escape of
the accused. AVs have the right to not be ‘excluded from any such public court
proceedings’ unless the Court determines testimonies would be altered by the
victims presence. AVs have the right to be ‘reasonably heard’ at public proceedings
and to ‘reasonably confer with the attorney for the prosecution’.
AVs have the
right to restitution as provided by statutes or relevant law. AVs have the right to
be free from unreasonable delay and to be treated with fairness, respect, and
privacy. AVs have a right, but are not provided with, an attorney with respect to
their rights under this Act. AVs are therefore not provided free legal aid and are
protected by aforementioned rights to counsel. In certain cases and circumstances,
for the example the Special Victims Counsel program in the U.S. military, victims
are given the right to free legal counsel.
Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 US 688, 691.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 USC 14141. If a law enforcement agency
receives federal funding the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968), 42 USC 3989d and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act (1964) 42 USC 2000d can be used.
20 See Addressing Police Misconduct, Civil Rights Division; U.S. Depeartment of Justice.
18
19
9.
Are there provisions for support services (including counseling, use of
interpreter, interim compensation and other measures) at the time of
complaint?
The Department of Justice has guidelines for information pertaining to support
services that are offered but not guaranteed to crime victims:
Victims should be informed and assisted with respect to transportation,
parking, childcare, translator services, and other
investigation-related
services. Once the prosecution agency files charges, the responsible official
of the prosecution agency is responsible for informing and assisting victims
with such information in connection with prosecution -related services.
Even before the prosecution files charges the responsible prosecution
official should assist victims with logistical information in connect ion with
pre-charging court proceedings such as grand jury appearances.
The
responsible official of the Parole Commission is responsible for informing
and assisting victims with similar services in connection with parole
hearings. 21
Under the 1984 Victim of Crime Act at the time of complaint, at the federal level,
there are not guaranteed victim assistance services and compensation programs, for
‘crime victims’.
The Victim of Crime Act (VOCA) established the Office for
Victims of Crime which can file amicus curiae briefs and provide emergency funds
for federal criminal justice agencies to provide support services. These VOCA
funded require AVs to submit claims regarding the necessity of the services . At the
state level there are notable differences in ter ms of compensation, availability of
interpreters, and the guaranteed rig ht to access a variety of other support services. 22
The majority of crime victim compensation systems in the United States require
claims to be made after criminal proceedings have tak en place. All states assess
whether victims were implicated in the crime and all AVs are required to cooperate
with the federal or state criminal justice system as a condition of receiving
compensation.
Counseling expenses, lost wages, medi cal expenses, and other
Attorney General Guidelines Victim and Witness Assistance, Office for Victims of Crime; Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice p 28 (g) (2).
22 Victims of Crime Act (1984), 42 USC 112.
21
crime-related expenses are under criminal court authority to determine whether
restitution is a reasonable form of financial redress. 23
10.
Are there provisions for witness protection during the investigation?
The United States Federal Witness Protec tion Program is administered by
Department of Justice for crime victims who would also qualify as ‘threatened
witnesses’ before, during, and after trials. 24
11.
Are the alleged victims consulted while deciding whether to prosecute?
In the 2006 District Court ruling U.S. v. Heaton under the Crime Victims’ Rights
Act, AVs should be consulted.
AVs right to consult while deciding whether to
prosecute was explained in the ruling:
‘[t]here is a particular need to examine the reasons for dismissal in this case
to ensure that the crime victim’s rights are fully protected. The indictment
alleges a sexual offense against a young victim. Under the Crime Victims’
Rights Act (CVRA), this victim has the broad right ‘to be treated with
fairness and with respect for [her] dignity and privacy.’”…“This victim’s
right to fairness extends to the court’s decision regarding whether to dismiss
an indictment even though no public proceeding will be held on the issue.
Although some of the other rights in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (such as
the right to be heard and the right to not be excluded) are limited to ‘pub lic proceedings,’ the right to fairness is not so restricted.”…“When the
government files a motion to dismiss criminal charges that involve a sp ecific
victim, the only way to protect the victim’s right to be treated fairly and with
respect for her dignity is to consider the victim’s views on the dismissal. . . .
[B]efore granting any motion by the government . . . to dismiss charges
involving a specific victim, the court must have the victim’s views on the
motion.” In such cases, therefore, the government should consult with the
victim and inform the court “that the victim has been consulted on the
dismissal and what the victim’s views were on the matter.’ 25
‘About Victims’ Rights’; VictimLaw, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp
24 Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 USC note prec 3481).
25 U.S. v. Heaton, 458 (D Utah 2006) F Supp 2d 1271, 1271, 1272-1273). Additional notes from Wood, Jefri ‘The
Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 and the Federal Courts’ Federal Judicial Center (2 June 2008).
23
12.
AVs are able to influence investigation and their rights are accorded as articulated
and interpreted in the Crime Victims Rights Act or the state equivalent of such
legislation. As AVs are not being represented by the prosecution in the case o f
criminal charges, ‘crime victims’ are not entitled to any additional rights such as the
right the deliver opening and closing statements, the right to present evidence, the
right to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine, the right to raise objection s, the
right to have a support person, intermediary, or interpreter, or necessarily any
other special measures. However, there is some case precedent that interprets the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act as providing these rights for AVs in special cases. For
example, a Court of Appeals 2008 ruling determined that when elements of the
CRVA are impracticable due to a large number of victims the ‘courts shall fashion a
reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate
or prolong the proceedings.’ 26 This ruling implies that there are instances in which
AVs should have alternative means of being involved in the efforts of the
prosecution.
13.
What are the rights available to the alleged victims in relation to the trial?
AVs in relation to the trial have the rights establish by the CRVA and equivalent
state and tribal statutes. It is the opinion of the Department of Justice that the
rights articulated in CRVA apply only after criminal proceedings have begun to take
place, which precludes pre-trial rights unless they are specified in other statutes. 27
Five of the eight rights conferred involve the existence of an ongoing criminal
procedure and therefore are relevant to the rights available to AVs in relation to
the trial. Most relevant is (4) the right to be reasonably heard at public proceeding
in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
Legislation does not allow nor prohibit alternate methods of being heard. There is
precedent for child victims to be allowed to testify on closed -circuit television or
videotape if the court finds that the child could not testify in person because of
fear, or that there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer emotional
trauma. 28
AVs also have the aforementioned rights including the right to be
notified when a verdict has been reached. In the case of arraignments, defendants
may agree to video teleconferencing for arraignment and a victim’s right to be
In re Dean, _F.3d_(5th Cir May 7, 2008) (per curiam)
See 367 F.Supp.2d at 326-327 & n 8 which excludes victims of uncharged conduct from the class of those entitled
to participatory rights under the Act because they do not meet the definition of ‘crime victims’ as defined in the
CRVA. Also see, Searcy v. Paletz (DSC June 27, 2007).
28 Child victims’ and child witnesses’ rights, 18 USC 3509
26
27
present and reasonably be heard must be accommodated if the court is in public
session during this video teleconferencing. 29
14.
If an AV believes that their rights have been violated as a crime victim they are
able to file for a writ of mandamus. Under a 2008 In re. Atrobus court of appeals
ruling AVs ability to file a writ of mandamus has been qualified with restrictions .
In this case, the parents of an AV who was under the age of 18 attempted to
petition for a writ and were denied their request. The court of appeals determined
that because the daughter had not yet qualified as a victim, the parents did not have
a right to be heard as their right to the writ was not ‘clear and indisputable.’ 30
15.
In case of failure of state officials to comply with regulations meant to
operationalise victims’ rights, she can complain to the Department of Justice and
within the department, ultimately, the Attorney General.
In this regard, Notes
from the Federal Judicial Center on the CRVA state that there is no judicial review,
or further investigation, beyond the Attorney General’s decision.
16.
A victim has the right to be notified and present at th e waiver of indictment
hearing.
If the release of a defendant become s a concern, such as when the
defendant refuses to waive indictment and bail must be continued or modified, a
victim has a right to be heard. A victim also has the right to be notified of and be
present at a hearing regarding the waiver of a jury trial. 31
17.
Victim Impact Statements:
The CRVA does not specify whether the right to be ‘reasonably heard’ requires the
court to allow an oral statement or can be limited to a written submission. One
district court determined that the section 3771 (a)(4) which outlines the right to be
heard provision would be satisfied by a written statement under the partic ular
circumstances of the case.
In the case of U.S. v. Marcello a pretrial detention
hearing allowed the son of two murder victims to either give an oral or writ ten
statement in order to fulfill the victims right to be ‘reasonably heard’.
In this
case—the son had no personal knowledge of the crime and the murder occurred
over twenty years prior—the court acknowledged that ‘reasonable minds may
differ’ on the issue. Courts have not determined how courts should ac count on the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure T 4. R 10. See also Valenzuela-Gonzales v. United States, 915 F 2d 1276, 1280
(9th Cir 1990).
30 In re Antrobus, 519 F 3d. 1123, 1124-26 (10th Cir. 2008).
31 See 1.06-1.09 of Wood, Jefri ‘The Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 and the Federal Courts’ Federal Judicial
Center (2 June 2008).
29
record for the impact, if any, such submissions have on its decisions involved the
release, plea, sentencing or parole. 32
18.
In a 2008 Court of Appeals case U.S. v. Eberhard ruled that victim impact
statements were incidental to the presentation of facts. In the case, a victim impact
statement was provided advocating for a harsher sentencing for the defendant
Eberhard. The defendants argued that ‘the district court’s application of 3771 (a)
allowed or compelled the government to circumvent the agreement through ‘victim surrogates,’ and thereby deprived Eberhard of the benefit of his plea agreement.’
The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that there was no evasion on the
part of the government’s legal arguments. 33
19.
An additional case, where a defendant was appealing their sentence, rejected this
defendant’s argument that the victim statements unfairly surprised him and
therefore was unreasonable. The court stated that ‘we perceive no violation of due
process in the ‘emotional appeal’ presented by the victim impact statements. While
it may be true that the statements presented a compelling account of the harms
allegedly wrought by Ausburn’s conduct, this is inherent in the victim’s right to
attend court and present his or her own account of the crime and its
impact…Nothing in the victim impact statement in this case was so unfairly
prejudicial or inflammatory as to present a due process issue.’ 34
20.
Courts have found that the relevant la w for compensation of AVs, which does
depend on a finding of guilt, is the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. 35
This
legislation sets parameters for the number of victims so that restitution main
remain practicable and sets procedure for cases where some de fendants are
convicted and others are not. The Act specifies how restitution should occur:
The order of restitution shall require that such defendant — in the
case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of
property of a victim of the o ffense—return the property to the owner
of the property or someone designated by the owner; or if return of
the property …is impossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an
amount equal to—the greater of— the value of the property on the
U.S. v. Marcello (1970), 400 US 1208.
U.S. v. Eberhard, F 3d_(2d Cir May, 2008) (Jacobs, C.J.)
34 U.S. v. Ausburn, 502 F 3d 313, 324 & n 17 (3d Cir. 2007).
35 Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 USC 3663A.
32
33
date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or the value of the property
on the date of sentencing, less the value (as of the date the property is
returned) of any part of the property that is returned; in the case of
an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim —pay an amount equal
to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and
devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care,
including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with
a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of
treatment; pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and
occupational therapy and rehabilitation; and reimburse the victim for
income lost by such victim as a result of such offense; in the case of
an offense resulting in bodily injury that results in the death of the
victim, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and
related services; and in any case, reimburse the victim for lost income
and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred
during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense
or attendance at proceedings related to the offense. 36
21.
The CRVA does not speak to rehabilitation, but it is reasonable to assume based on
other procedures that a finding of guilt would be required to be determined
‘reasonable’ treatment of a defined ‘crime victim’. The aforementioned Mandatory
Victim Restitution Act outlines some rehabilitation costs and services to which
AVs could be entitled.
22.
The right for an AV to appeal is aforementioned as it pertains to a writ of
mandamus.
23.
The appeals process involves this right of appeal and otherwise AVs rights are
articulated by the CRVA. 37
24.
It is not just the verdict or sentence that can be appealed by AVs, but any public
court hearing can and should, as outlined in federal statutes, involve reasonable
involvement.
Again, at the state level the ostensible right to be heard by AVs
differs greatly. 38
Ibid, (b).
Crime Vicitm’s Rights Act, 18 USC 3771
38 Ibid.
36
37
25. AVs in public court hearing are entitled to being hear d which also applies to the
enforcement hearings.
Per the CRVAs right to be protected from the accused
provision, this can be interpreted to provide AVs with special rights. 39
QUESTION 2: ARE THERE ANY SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF
ALLEGED VICTIMS (EG CHILD WITNESSES, WITNESSES WITH
INTELLECTUAL
OR
MENTAL
DISABILITY,
WITNESSES
ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE ETC) TO WHOM THE ABOVE RIGHTS
ARE AVAILABLE? IF YES, DEFINE THOSE CATEGORIES AND
ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF EACH
CATEGORY.
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 created special protections for abuse
victims that established automatic and mandatory restitution for criminal cases
where convictions take place. These provisions are spelled out separately from the
Crime Victims Rights Act and are seen as entirely distinct from crime victims in
American case law. 40
Other special categories of AVs are outlined above, for
example in the case of the rights of AVs who are minors, however little precedent
has been set detailing how the CRVA applies.
The defintion of the CRVA is
restrictive as to provide for other jurisdictions and the impact of particular crimes
to be determined through other statute law.
CONCLUSION

The United States has a common law system where juries are the triers of
fact.

Victims are defined by the Crime Victims Rights Act whereas ‘crime victims’
are different than victims in civil claims.

Criminal complaints must be made under oath to judicial officer.

Private prosecutions are not available at the federal level and are not
available in most state courts.

39
40
There are not special provisions for international crimes.
Ibid.
Violence Against Women Act (2000), 42 USC 3796.

There is a duty to investigate when complaints are filed by AVs under the
Constitutional right to due process.

AVs who file a criminal complaint can file complaints regarding police
misconduct to the Department of Justice.

AVs have rights as outlined primarily in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act
(CRVA). 41

The Department of Justice provides information regarding, but not
guaranteed access to, specified support services at the time of complaint.

There are provisions for witness protection for threatened witnesses during
the investigation.

AVs have the right to be heard and consulted while deciding whether to
prosecute, but do not have determinative power.

AVs can file writ of mandamus to challeng e the decision of the competent
authority.

AVs can influence the indictment through their right to be reasonably heard
in public court proceedings.

AVs have the right when an indictment is issued to receive relevant
information as outline in the CRVA.

AVs are able to influence investigations under the right to be reasonably
heard, but they are not legally represented by the government.

AVs are not provided rights in relation to pre -trial detention as they are not
considered ‘crime victims’ by definition prior to criminal proceedings.

AVs are provided with basic ‘crime victims’ rights as outlined in the CRVA
and equivalent state statutes.

AVs are entitled to the right to be reasonably heard which include victim
impact statements, however how those statements are to be provided has yet
to be definitively determined.

AVs can be entitled to compensation through the Violence Against Women
Act, the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, or other relevant statutes.

AVs have the right to be reasonably heard when it comes to the appeals
process.
41
Crime Vicitm’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771

AVs have the right to be reasonably heard when it comes to the enforcement
process and also have the right to be reasonably protected by the state from
the accused.

The Violence Against Women Act creates special categories for victi ms of
abuse, but the Act contains definitions that differ from general federal and
state ‘crime victim’ statutes.