School navigation

Criminal Law

This group of events, news, and resources comes directly from National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) and the student chapter of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Criminal Law News & Resources

  • Defendant was arrested for selling heroin lethally laced with fentanyl that resulted in the victim’s overdose and death.  Six months following the arrest, defendant appeared in district court to waive indictment and enter a guilty plea to the single charge of distribution of heroin.  The judge inquired whether the victim’s family was present and whether they agreed with the plea agreement.  The prosecutor informed the court that he was new to the case and had not personally spoken with the victim’s family, but that through the victim-witness coordinator the victim’s family was apprised of the proceedings.  The judge proceeded with the plea hearing, but withheld acceptance of the plea until the prosecution could inform him of the views of the victim’s family regarding the plea.  The judge then ordered the prosecution to file a statement describing how the government had complied with its obligations under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and “whether the victim’s family and/or estate concurs with the proposed terms of the plea agreement.”  The prosecution submitted a statement informing the court that the victim-witness coordinator notified the victim’s mother that the plea agreement was reached, and that the she “expressed dissatisfaction that the death of her son was not charged.”   In deciding whether to accept the plea agreement after receiving this information, the court referred to the CVRA, which provides crime victims with ten individual rights.  The judge noted that a court may respect the rights of victims by declining to accept a guilty plea if the government violates the CVRA, reasoning that a district court has broad discretion to reject a plea agreement in the interests of the “sound administration of justice[,]” which he concluded requires respect for the rights and interests of crime victims.  Although recognizing that the government may have good reasons for not pursuing the highest charge, the court rejected the idea that the government had a good or defensible reason for not speaking to the victim’s family before it entered into a plea agreement with defendant.  
  • Image preview
    Register by April 7th for the Early Bird Rate!
  • Image preview
    Join NCVLI for a Community Awareness Event at 12:15PM on April 3, 2017 in McCarty Classroom 1
  • Defendant in the underlying criminal matter was indicted for incest, rape, and statutory rape by an authority figure.  During the pre-indictment investigation, the prosecutor’s office obtained a judicial subpoena for the mental health records of the child-victim.  The judicial subpoena was served on Centerstone, a community mental health services provider operating in seventeen Tennessee counties.  Centerstone informed the state that it would not comply with the subpoena, and the trial court issued a summons to appear and show cause.  Centerstone filed a motion to quash the judicial subpoena.  During a hearing, Centerstone’s Director of Health Information Management testified that, as a matter of course, Centerstone responds to judicial subpoenas by informing the requesting party that it should seek disclosure of records using Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-3-105(3), which governs subpoenas for confidential information and which requires a hearing and the application of a specific standard.  Testimony further established that a trial court has never ordered Centerstone to disclose mental health records in order to comply with a judicial subpoena, rather than conducting the hearing required pursuant to Section 33-3-105(3).  The trial court denied Centerstone’s motion to quash but granted permission to seek appellate review.  On appeal, Centerstone argued that a judicial subpoena is not a valid mechanism for discovery of mental health records, which are made confidential by law, and that access, unless granted voluntarily, must follow the procedure set forth in Section 33-3-105(3); the state disagreed.  As a question of first impression, the Court of Criminal Appeals analyzed the relevant statutory provisions at issue, concluding that the personal privacy interests of the subjects of the mental health records protected by Tennessee law require that they receive “pre-hearing notice and an opportunity to be heard … rather than being forced to rely on the holder of the mental health records to protect [their] interests after an ex parte hearing.”
  • If you provide legal or social services to victims, we want to hear from you. Click here to find out more.
  • Image preview
    Click here to join NCVLI and the Oregon Department of Justice for an MCLE and Community Awareness Event at 8:30AM on April 4, 2017.
  • Image preview
    Click here to raise your voice for justice for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
  • Image preview
    NCVLI Staff Spotlight: Amy Liu
  • Image preview
    NCVLI Staff Spotlight: Sarah LeClair
  • Image preview
    When each of us raises our voice for justice we make a difference. Click here to join us.