In a case of first impression, the Connecticut Supreme Court analyzed whether a victim could seek enforcement of the state’s constitutional victims’ rights by appealing an order issued in a criminal case.More >

The petitioner-victim initiated a mandamus proceeding, requesting that the Tenth Circuit direct the district court assigned to the habeas proceedings brought by the man convicted of murdering his mother to: 1) reconsider the petitioner-victim’s motion to dismiss defendant’s remaining habeas claims, in light of the petitioner-victim’s rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (CVRA); 2) afford petitioner-victim his CVRA rights not to be excluded from public court proceedings, to be reasonably heard, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy in all future proceedings; and 3) avoid further delay and present a scheduling order to resolve the remaining habeas-related issues by the end of the year, if the district court’s reconsideration of the petitioner-victim’s motion does not result in a dismissal of defendant’s petition.More >

Defendant was charged with two counts of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, arising out of allegations made against him by his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter.  Before trial, the child-victim recanted and the prosecution provided notice of its intent to call as witnesses the child-victim’s guardian ad litem and the social worker assigned to the case.More >

Two victim-plaintiffs sued the federal government, claiming violations of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771,  arising from the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s handling of the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, the man who sexually abused plaintiffs while they were minors.More >

Defendant pled guilty to wire and mail fraud charges and received a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment, which was above the stipulated advisory guideline range.  On appeal, Defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in relying on the victim impact statements to influence its sentencing decision because the victims had not sworn to tell the truth.More >

Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating a stalking protective order.  The trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the two counts.  On review, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s convictions, reasoning that the state’s constitutional free speech provision required that the statute be narrowed to withstand an overbreadth challenge to require “an unequivocal threat of the sort that makes it objectively reasonable for the victim to believe that he or she is being threatened with imminent and serious physical harm,” and that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof on both counts.More >

Defendant was convicted of one count of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 and one count of continuous sexual abuse, relating to the sexual abuse of his step-daughter when she was between the ages of eight and 15.  The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years in state prison and ordered him to pay restitution, which included $750,000 in noneconomic losses for psychological harm pursuant to a state statute allowing for such awards against those convicted of felony child sexual abuse.More >

Victim-petitioner filed for and was granted an emergency petition for a civil order of protection under the state’s Civil No Contact Order Act (“Act”), after she was raped by respondent following a night of heavy drinking.  The victim then sought a plenary no-contact order against respondent.More >

Defendant was charged with stalking the victim, his estranged wife.  Soon thereafter, the victim informed the prosecutor’s office that she was invoking her state constitutional rights to be notified in advance of sentencing and other critical stage hearings, and she timely completed and returned a form memorializing these requests.  The victim was told by the victim advocate that she did not need to be present for an upcoming pretrial appearance by defendant.  During this time, the prosecutor and defendant were engaging in plea negotiations, and at the scheduled pretrial hearing, defendant pleaded guilty to stalking the victim and was immediately sentenced to two years’ probation.  When the victim learned that defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced in her absence, she filed a claim asserting the violation of her state constitutional and statutory rights to be present and informed in advance of any critical stage proceedings, and to be heard at sentencing.More >

Defendant was charged with one count of leaving the scene of a fatal injury accident.  Shortly before trial, defendant filed a motion to preclude the state from referring to the child who was killed in the accident as a “victim.”  While the state did not oppose this request, the prosecutor raised concerns relating to the protection of the child’s parents’ rights as victims of the offense.More >

Four victim-plaintiffs sued Joseph Francis and companies owned or controlled by him for damages arising from defendants’ depiction of the plaintiffs, while minors, in sexually explicit situations in the “Girls Gone Wild” films.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to appear anonymously at trial.More >

Defendant was indicted on several charges relating to production and possession of child pornography.  Prior to trial, he filed a motion in limine in which he made two arguments.  First, he objected to the designation of the images involved in the case as “child pornography.”  He argued that one issue in the case is whether the images in question meet the federal definition of child pornography, and thus to characterize them as child pornography is argumentative and subverts defendant’s presumption of innocence.More >

Defendants in a civil forfeiture action and a parallel criminal action that stem from the same set of alleged fraudulent acts sought to depose the crime victims in the civil case while the criminal case was pending.  The state filed a special action to challenge the trial court’s denial of its motions for a protective order to prevent the depositions, arguing that the crime victims have the right to refuse defendant’s request for a deposition under Arizona’s Victim Bill of Rights.More >

Defendant and the state agreed to a plea bargain on a vehicular manslaughter charge without consulting with the victim’s representative.  The plea was accepted by the trial court.  At a later sentencing hearing, the victim’s representative requested restitution, citing Maryland’s law affording victims the independent right to make a restitution request.  Defendant objected as restitution was not a part of the agreed-to plea.More >

In the initial stages of a high profile case in which defendant is accused of the kidnapping and sexual assault of a child, the court, inter alia, devised a plan to accommodate the media’s heightened interest in the voir dire proceedings.More >

Defendant appealed from his convictions on numerous counts, including second and third degree criminal sexual penetration, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.  He argued, inter alia, that the district court erred (1) in limiting discovery, and (2) in appointing counsel to the victim.More >

Defendant was charged with the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine and sought pretrial interviews with three police officers involved in the case.  The officers were willing to talk to defense counsel, but when they refused to allow him to tape record them, he terminated the interviews.  Defendant then sought a court order requiring the witnesses to submit to a recorded deposition pursuant to a state court rule.  The trial court granted defendant’s request, holding that witnesses were subject to deposition after they refused to consent to the tape recording of a voluntary pretrial interview in a criminal case.  The state appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the state court rule permitting depositions to be ordered does not apply when a witness has agreed to the interview but has merely placed a condition on the interview (for example, that it not be tape recorded).More >

Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of defrauding her employer and restitution was ordered.  Defendant appealed from the restitution order arguing, inter alia, that the court erred in including the victims’ attorney fees, investigator fees, audit fees, banking fees, and interest as these losses were “consequential” and therefore barred by Arizona’s restitution statutes.  In particular, defendant argued that the victims were not entitled to recover in restitution the costs associated with retaining an attorney to advise them about how to terminate defendant and handle insurance claims, and about their rights as crime victims. More >

Defendant was indicted on five counts of first-degree murder and the state filed notice of intent to seek the death penalty.  Defendant moved for –and the trial court granted – an ex parte hearing relating to mitigation discovery.  The family members of the homicide victims filed a petition for special action challenging the trial court’s order on the grounds that it violated their constitutional and statutory right “to be present … at all criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.”  More >

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the victims of petitioner’s crime filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and to be heard under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771.  In their motion, the victims argued that they were entitled to intervene in the habeas action because, as family members of the murder victim, they had a property interest in the restitution order resulting from petitioner’s state convictions. More >

Defendant was charged with domestic abuse assault.  Intending to rely on a defense of self-defense, defendant deposed the victim and sought certain of the victim’s mental health records referenced in the deposition, arguing that they showed that she had a propensity for violence.  More >

Media outlets sought physical copies of video clips shown at defendant’s public competency hearing. The court considered the media’s request under both the First Amendment and common law standards governing the press and public’s right of access to court documents. More >

The victims, who lost over $2.7 million as the result of defendant’s fraudulent investment scheme, appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for restitution. In considering whether the victims had standing to bring their appeal, the court found that the victims had failed to show that they were not subject to “the baseline rule [ ] that crime victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant’s criminal sentence.” More >

A fraud victim, who had been awarded over $700,000 in restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), moved to intervene, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, in a civil action involving the collection and distribution of defendant’s assets. The trial court denied the victim-creditor’s motion, and he appealed. In reviewing his appeal, the court found that the MVRA “clearly gives victims the right to self-help in collecting restitution ordered for their benefit,”More >

Defendant, convicted of violating the federal aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, appealed. Defendant’s convictions were related to her use of the victim’s social security card to apply for a driver’s license in October 2004 and for a state identification card in December 2007. More >

Defendant, charged with having made telephone threats to a reproductive health services facility, requested, inter alia, that the court make a discretionary transfer of his change of plea hearing “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice,” pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b). More >

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that law enforcement officers who are accused of failing to investigate a crime or make an arrest due to the race of the victim and that of the perpetrator are not entitled to qualified immunity in a case where an automobile accident victim brought a civil rights action against police officers, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.More >

Defendant killed two brothers, Dan and John Hays, when the car he was driving collided head on into their vehicle. The state charged defendant with two counts of misdemeanor negligent homicide, among others. Peggy and Patricia Hays, the brothers’ wives, and victims under Utah’s Constitution and the Rights of Crime Victims Act, informed the prosecutor they wished to exercise their rights to be present, to address the court at the plea and sentencing hearing, and to request restitution. More >

Local # 46 Metallic Lathers Union and Reinforcing Iron Workers and its associated benefit and other funds (Local 46 or petitioner), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Second Circuit challenging the district court’s determination that it was not a crime victim and therefore not entitled to restitution. More >