April 22, 2009
Another victim loss in a CVRA ruling from the Tenth Circuit
Today the Tenth Circuit has issues another opinion in the interesting victims rights case In re Antrobus (available here). Here is the concluding section of the opinion:
This case has a frustrating procedural history. It is, for example, regrettable that the petitioners were not given access to the ATF report, given the government’s lack of opposition. But in our system we do not possess perpetual power to revisit regrettable results, especially those we are never asked to review.
In the end, there is no one to blame here. The CVRA is a relatively new statute that effects dramatic changes to our traditional criminal justice system. The participants in that system—prosecutors, defendants, victims, and courts alike—are rightfully struggling with its scope and meaning. Understandably, the process of working out these changes may not be perfect. District courts and prosecutors must become sensitive to Congress’s new demand that victims have a seat at the table. At the same time, all litigants have to be aware of the constraints associated with efforts to relitigate issues repeatedly, and the scope of our review under law.
April 22, 2009 at 06:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another victim loss in a CVRA ruling from the Tenth Circuit:
Another great example of why granting official victim status to anyone during criminal proceedings is a terrible idea.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Apr 22, 2009 10:08:36 PM
The CVRA is a Trojan Horse of lawyer rent seeking. Victims may end up having a right to lawyer representation, generating massive lawyer employment.
It promotes no substantive victim right, just unconstitutional verbiage. It violates Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process right to a fair trial. It does not allow for cross examination of the victim statement.
Substantive victims rights are nowhere to be seen, in this context. They have a right to safety by having repeat violent offenders immediately executed.
They should have a right to sue government officials loosing millions of vicious criminals, with warning and scienter from repeated offenses. These government officials include the Supreme Court. It should be made to pay for the damages from the Scalia Bounce. The tort is per se, since Scalia used unlawful argument from foreign law maker, Gladstone. The latter is not just a foreign jurist. He voted for the Stamp Act, and tried our patriots in absentia. He was a sworn enemy of the USA, and a toadying, bowing and scraping Royalist. If one can simultaneously be a toad and weasel, Gladstone achieved that status.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 23, 2009 5:54:07 AM
Commercial, Residential and metal roofing products and other roofing supplies, Baker Roofing Company is one of the top 4 roofing companies in the US.
Posted by: Residential Metal Roofing,Residential Roofing Repair | May 12, 2009 8:54:02 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but this line made a lot of sense to me: "Another great example of why granting official victim status to anyone during criminal proceedings is a terrible idea."
As a citizen, I get tired of hearing "why" somebody was involved in criminal activity (e.g. bad home life, drugs, eating donuts, etc), what I want to know is are they guilty. If they are let's push forward with due process. Maybe I haven't walked a mile in their shoes, but all this excuse making is getting old.
Posted by: roofing dallas | Oct 22, 2010 4:09:59 PM