Volume2

Protecting, Enforcing and Advancing Victims' Rights

NCVLI News

Lewis & Clark Law School ncvli.org

spring/summer 2004 Publication NCVLI News is a biannual publication of the National Crime Victim Law Institute.

To reach the staff of the National Crime Victim Law Institute, contact: NCVLI Lewis & Clark Law School 10015 SW Terwilliger Boulevard Portland, OR 97219 Tel: 503.768.6819 Fax: 503.768.6671 ncvli@lclark.edu www.ncvli.org Contents State/Federal Demonstration Project ...................................Page 1 Director's Message ...................................Page 2 Announcement of New Program Manager .................................. Page 3 National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys ...................................Page 3 Standing in Appellate Courts..................... Page 4 NCVLI Briefs ...................................Page 5 The Role of the State's Attorney..................Page 6 Student Profile.....Page 6 Advocate Spotlight .................................Page 7 A Victim's Story ...................................Page 8 Contributors Editor: Julie Hawkins Editorial content: Douglas Beloof, Esq. Meg Garvin, Esq. Kim Montagriff, Esq. Liani Jean Heh Reeves, Esq. Joanna Tucker Davis, Esq.

FIVE NEW LEGAL CLINICS WILL AID IN DELIVERY OF DIRECT SERVICES TO VICTIMS

by Meg Garvin, NCVLI Lead Staff Attorney

A new era began on April 1, 2004, an era in which crime victims are represented by their own attorneys in the criminal justice system.

Five new legal clinics, and a pre-existing clinic, will receive direction from the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School under the auspices of the State/ Federal Demonstration Project — a project made possible by a grant from the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Purposes of the Project This Project is a demonstration project, which means that there are interacting short and long term goals. The short-term goal is to create and support crime victim law clinics in a number of states that provide direct legal representation to victims in the criminal courts. The long-term goal is to determine whether these clinics, in practice, advance crime victims’ rights. To affect these goals, every step in the development and support of these clinics will be monitored and evaluated. Together, NCVLI and the clinics will identify and implement solutions to challenges in the representation of crime victims and then evaluate those solutions at the end of the Project.

The new clinics are located throughout the United States. Each one brings to the table a diverse background in the field of crime victims’ rights and a unique organizational structure that will enhance the ability of the Project to identify promising practices. The clinics are: • Crime Victim Legal Clinic of the Capital Center for Government Law and Policy, located at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California • The Maryland Crime Victim Law Clinic of the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center in Upper Marlboro, Maryland

• St. Louis Crime Victim Rights Law Clinic, part of the Crime Victim Advocacy Center in St. Louis, Missouri • Victims' Rights Legal Assistance Project of the DWI Resource Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico • Crime Victims Legal Network of the South Carolina Victim Assistance Network in Columbia, South Carolina In addition to funding the five clinics, NCVLI is able to continue to support the Victims’ Legal Assistance Project (VLAP), a collaboration between Arizona Voice for Crime Victims and the Arizona State University College of Law. VLAP is the first of these clinics to routinely provide legal assistance to crime victims, and it will continue to do so under the Demonstration Project grant. VLAP will also serve as a model for the five new legal clinics.

The Role of the National Crime Victim Law Institute Over the life of the Project, NCVLI’s role will be three-fold. First, NCVLI will provide on-going legal technical assistance to the clinics on victim cases. Part of the technical assistance will be the provision of a legal reference manual to serve as a primer on crime victim law. Second, NCVLI will provide on-site trainings and education seminars.

This training and education component will aid in the development of a network of crime victim attorneys to represent victims in criminal proceedings. Finally, NCVLI, in collaboration with the clinics, will collect and evaluate the information and data that the Project generates and begin identifying promising practices for purposes of creating a model for victim rights law clinics that can be replicated nationwide.

The First Phase The Project has a five-year life span, and each of those years will bring new learning opportunities. This opening phase is an Continued on Page 7

© 2004 National Crime Victim Law Institute

Page 1

spring/summer 2004 Preparation of NCVLI News was supported by Grant No. 2002-VF-GXK004, awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this newsletter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

OVC is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

NCVLI Staff Director Professor Douglas Beloof Associate Director Gina McClard OVC Project Manager Barbara Brady Staff Attorneys Meg Garvin, Jessica Mindlin, Kim Montagriff, Liani Jean Heh Reeves, Joanna Tucker Davis Administration: Bea Freilich, Julie Hawkins Board of Directors Sean Beers, J.D., CPA Gail Burns-Smith Collene Campbell Gary Campbell Helene Davis Jim Goelzer Sally Goelzer James Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School Dean (ex officio) Candace Kane, Ph.D., J.D. Judge William Keys (Chair)

ncvli.org

MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR by Professor Douglas E. Beloof I recently returned from Washington, D.C., where the Senate voted on an important victims' rights bill. Senate Bill 2329 passed April 22, 2004 on a vote of 96 to 1 and is awaiting action in the House.

The pending federal legislation provides strong rights for federal crime victims and promises to invigorate legal advocacy for victims of crime. It was passed after an eight-year effort to pass a constitutional amendment for crime victims stalled. The central argument against the amendment was that a statute — with financial incentives to the states to create meaningful rights with standing — should be passed first. This bill is an effort to encourage states to provide enforceable rights, thereby avoiding the need to federally constitutionalize those rights.

The rights provided for in Senate Bill 2329 are: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public proceeding

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing (5) The right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

The federal statute provides victims standing to enforce these rights via a writ of mandamus: “If a Federal court denies any right of a crime victim under this chapter or under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government or the crime victim may apply for a writ of mandamus to the appropriate court of appeals. The court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith and shall order such relief as may be necessary to protect the crime victim’s ability to exercise the rights.”

The central message from the Senate vote is that the chamber strongly supports meaningful victims’ rights with standing. The significance of the Senate’s endorsement should not be underestimated. In passing the bill 96-1, the Senate endorses an independent rights model directly enforceable by the crime victim.

In another positive development for crime victims, five new legal clinics will provide direct legal representation to victims as part of the State/Federal Demonstration Project (see Page One). I am optimistic that the clinics and the National Crime Victim Law Institute can make great contributions to the victims' rights movement and in the area of crime victim law. I commend the work of clinic directors and staff and look forward to our collaboration.

Page 2

spring/summer 2004

ncvli.org

NCVLI'S NEW PROGRAM MANAGER STEERS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT by Meg Garvin, NCVLI Lead Staff Attorney The staff of the National Crime Victim Law Institute is pleased to welcome its newest member, Barbara Brady, MSW. As Program Manager for the State/Federal Demonstration Project (Page 1), Ms. Brady is responsible for overseeing the administrative and financial aspects of the Institute’s effort to build and enhance a system of legal support for crime victims nationally. Ms. Brady comes to the Institute from a mental health background, with a professional specialty in project development for children’s mental health. So, how did she make the transition from mental health and social work into crime victim law?

After nearly three decades as a licensed clinical social worker treating, advocating for, and building systems to support children and their families, Ms. Brady decided to contribute her skills to a new project of national scope and import.

In her three short months with the Institute, Ms. Brady has begun development of the fiscal management, procedural and organizational structures needed for supporting a nationwide system of crime victim-focused legal clinics. She is developing an operations manual for the Demonstration Project and for each of the legal clinics.

She views this position as "a lifetime opportunity. It is rare that one is invited to participate at the ground level in the development of a relatively new area of crime victim law, to do so alongside experts in the field, such as Professor Doug Beloof, with a leading edge

organization, and to know that you can help people all across the country."

With Ms. Brady’s help, the Institute and the clinics will be able to efficiently and effectively help a tremendous number of crime victims. “What I do — the fiscal and administrative side — may seem boring to some, but to me it’s the scaffolding upon which great legal minds and passionate advocates can build a sustainable system of legal practice,” she says. "My passion is for underserved and vulnerable populations, and I see my skills as an administrator as gifts that I can use to benefit those in need of support. I feel very lucky to be a part of such a momentous development."

In fact, it is the Institute that is lucky. Ms. Brady has already proven to be a tremendous asset. Her knowledge of fiscal and administrative management, together with her years of service in the field of social work, provide the Institute with a solid center and a renewed sensitivity to a variety of populations in need. She believes that the Institute has the chance to make a difference, to raise the whole system to a new level through the Office for Victims of Crime funding. “It’s important that we set up clinics that are effective in their home states and that collaborate across the country. Only then can we stimulate change in legal practice and culture."

There is no doubt that with Barbara Brady’s help crime victims nationwide will be better served.

Join NAVRA Now! At this point in time, the victims’ rights movement is being pushed by a small number of attorneys across the country.

While these attorneys are passionate, active, and committed to helping victims in the criminal justice system, the simple fact is more attorneys are needed to help the cause.

You can help by joining the National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys (NAVRA). The purpose of NAVRA, as a professional organization of attorneys, is to make quality legal services for crime victims readily available and to create efficiencies in legal service through shared knowledge and communication. Just imagine the effect on the criminal justice system when there are attorneys in every state actively litigating the rights of crime victims.

NCVLI will help NAVRA attorneys by providing education and training materials; legal reference manuals and sample forms readily adaptable by attorneys to the pleading format of a particular state; and technical expertise of NCVLI’s staff attorneys. The more legal help provided to victims now, the sooner there will exist a criminal justice system that accepts victims as legitimate participants in the criminal process. For a fee of $35, membership benefits include: * Direct access to NCVLI’s technical assistance staff * Access to NCVLI’s library of briefs and legal research memos * Legal reference materials * Biannual newsletter * 10% tuition discount for NCVLI trainings and conferences * Dedicated website (under construction) * Email Listserv (under construction) Use the enclosed membership card and mail to the National Crime Victim Law Institute or contact us for more information (navra@lclark.edu). Become a leader in the victims’ rights movement!

Page 3

ncvli.org

spring/summer 2004

EXPRESS STANDING IN APPELLATE COURTS: APPROACHES TO VICTIM PARTICIPATION

by Professor Douglas E. Beloof, NCVLI Director

Victim standing to defend victims’ rights on review is a substantial topic that must be divided into several newsletters. In the last newsletter, the ability to exercise rights in trial courts was examined. In this edition, the express state constitutional and statutory provisions for review or standing are identified. In the next edition, NCVLI will examine implied standing arising from victims’ constitutional rights.

Eight state constitutions or statutes explicitly provide for review of victims’ rights violations. For instance, South Carolina’s Constitution provides that the enforcement of victims’ rights is to be sought through mandamus. It provides that “the rights created in this section may be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any justice of the Supreme Court or Circuit Court Judge to require compliance” of government officials. S.C. Const. Art. I, § 24. In Reed v. Becka, 511 S.E.2d 396, (S.C. Ct. App. 1999), the court held that mandamus, not appeal, was the appropriate review mechanism.

The Nevada Constitution provides that an action to compel the government to comply with the right is available. The Nevada Constitution reads, “A person may maintain an action to compel a public officer or employee to carry out any duty required by the legislature pursuant to subsection 2.” Nev. Const. Art. 1, § 8(4). Nevada has no case law defining the parameters of such action to compel in a crime victim case.

Utah law specifically provides that a victim may use mandamus to enforce his or her rights. Utah’s victims’ rights amendment provides “The Legislature shall have the power to enforce and define this section by statute.”

Utah Const. Art. 1, sec. 28(4). Utah Code Ann. 77-3811(2)(a)(i). "The victim [may] bring an action for declaratory relief or for a writ of mandamus defining or enforcing the rights of victims and the obligations of government entities under [the Rights of Crime Victims Act].” In State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756, 766 (Utah 2002), while refusing to address remedies, the court noted that the legislature had made mandamus an available remedy in cases where the victim’s right to be heard was denied.

Arizona has abolished the old writs and in their place created “special actions,” which crime victims may bring to enforce their rights. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 13-4437 provides, “The victim has standing to seek an order

or to bring a special action mandating that the victim be afforded any right or challenge any order denying any rights guaranteed to victims under the victims’ bill of rights, article II, Sec. 2.1, Constitution of Arizona, any implementing legislation or court rules.” In Knapp v.

Martone, 823 P.2d 685, 686-687 (Ariz., 1992), the Arizona Supreme Court considered a special action brought by a mother, whose three children had been murdered, to enforce her right as a crime victim to refuse to give the defendant a deposition. The court had found the mother was not a victim as defined by the Arizona Constitution.

The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding the mother was a victim and thus could refuse the defendant’s request for a deposition as provided by the constitution.

Maryland gives victims the right to appeal from an interlocutory or final order that denies or fails to consider a victims’ right. Md. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. Sec. 11-103(b) provides: “ [A] victim of violent crime for which the defendant is charged may file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special Appeals from an interlocutory or final order that denies or fails to consider a right secured to a victim for the right to be present at trial or give a victim impact statement." Cianos v. State, 659 A.2d 291 (MD 1995). "Although not a party to a criminal proceeding, the victim of the violent crime for which the defendant is charged has a right to file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special Appeals from an interlocutory or final order that denies or fails to consider a right secured to that victim by Article 27." Id. at 293.

By granting victims "standing to enforce the rights", the Texas Constitution implicitly provides for some review procedure. Tex Const. Art. I, Sec. 30. Herrera v State, 24 S.W.3d 844 (Tex Ct. App 2000). (Implying that victims have standing, but holding that the person asserting standing in the case was a defendant and not within the statutory definition of victim.)

Florida statutes grant victims "standing." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 960.001(7). A Florida appellate court has allowed a victim a petition for certiorari under the Florida constitutional provisions for victims’ rights because there was no other statutorily authorized means of review. Ford v. State, 829 So.2d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002).

Certiorari was granted under the court's inherent authority to review constitutional questions in the absence of express legislated review provisions.

Continued on next page

Page 4

spring/summer 2004 Like Florida, Indiana statutes provide that “A victim has standing to assert the rights established by this article.”

Ind. Code § 35-40-2-1(1). There is no Indiana case law interpreting the statute, but it is probable that, as in Florida, a writ of certiorari would be available.

In these jurisdictions with express review or standing provisions, review is available. Two of these jurisdictions unnecessarily hamper that review with “no stay” provisions. The Maryland Constitution, while allowing for appeal, provides: “[n]othing in this article ... authorizes a victim of crime to take any action to stay a criminal justice proceeding.” Md. Const. Art 47(c).

Similarly, the Nevada Constitution, while allowing for an action to compel, provides that victims' rights violation cannot be the basis of “continuing or postponing of a criminal proceeding.” Nev. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8. These no stay provisions may force cases into a moot status.

Where a review process is expressly authorized, other review mechanisms may be implicitly foreclosed. For example, Arizona courts have interpreted a provision for “special action,” which is in the nature of the writ of mandamus, to exclude review on appeal. State v.

Lamberton, 899 P2d 939 (Ariz. 1995) (the victim is not an aggrieved party so there is no right to file a petition for review.) South Carolina courts have reached a similar conclusion: “A victim as defined in S.C. Code Ann Sec 16-3-1510 (supp. (1997) possesses no right in the appellate process. Nothing in our Constitution provides the “victim” standing to appeal the trial court’s order.

Additionally, the rights granted by the South Carolina Constitution are enforceable by a writ of mandamus...”.

Reed v. Becka, 1 S.E. 2d 396 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999).

While these eight states expressly provide for some method of review, other state constitutions implicitly provide crime victim standing to enforce their rights simply because of the nature of the rights as state constitutional rights. This legal topic will be highlighted in the next newsletter.

NCVLI welcomes story ideas and suggestions for future articles that spotlight a service provider, attorney, advocate or public citizen working on behalf of crime victims. We are also interested in hearing from victims who want to share their experiences with our readers. Please send submissions to the following address:

NCVLI Newsletter Lewis & Clark Law School 10015 SW Terwilliger Boulevard Portland, OR 97219 Tel: 503.768.6819 Fax: 503.768.6671 ncvli@lclark.edu

ncvli.org

NCVLI'S BRIEF BANK As part of its mission to advance crime victims’ rights, the National Crime Victim Law Institute litigates nationwide. Since the fall of 2003, the Institute's staff attorneys have submitted amicus curiae briefs in the following cases, often together with co-amici: • Commonwealth v. Pelosi. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. NCVLI argued that it was improper for either the state or the defendant to use a pre-trial subpoena to obtain “discovery” from a non-party victim.

• Schilling v. Wisconsin. Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Lower court, in reviewing a censure that a district attorney received from a victims’ right board, declared that the general rights of fairness, dignity, and respect for victims’ privacy in the constitution were advisory and without legal force. NCVLI argued that these rights are mandatory and fully enforceable.

• State v. Bryant. Colorado Trial Court.

Defendant argued that when a defendant disputes whether a crime occurred, a person is not a “victim” until defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. NCVLI argued that the independent, participatory and procedural nature of victims’ rights make those rights independent of the defense asserted or the burden of proof to be met.

• State v. Cervantes. Arizona Supreme Court.

Defendant sought copies of child pornography to assist in preparation of his defense. NCVLI argued that the statutory and constitutional rights of child victims mandate that the defendant be allowed no more access to child pornography than is constitutionally required to prepare, and under no circumstances would this include receiving a copy.

• State v. Gonzales. Utah Court of Appeals.

Defendant argued that Utah law allowed him to subpoena a victim’s therapy records without notifying the victim or the state. NCVLI argued that Utah subpoena law, federal due process law, and the Utah Victim Rights’ Amendment require that a victim receive notice and be given an opportunity to be heard before a party may gain access to records.

• Lopez-Sanchez v. State. Maryland Court of Appeals. In a juvenile delinquency case, an award of restitution was entered by the trial court without providing the victim an opportunity to be heard, as was his right. NCVLI argued that a victim of a delinquent act has standing to appeal this award of restitution.

If you would like a copy of any of these briefs, please contact the Institute by calling (503) 768-6250 or via email at ncvli@lclark.edu.

Page 5

spring/summer 2004

ncvli.org

RETHINKING THE ROLE OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY

by Kim Montagriff, NCVLI Staff Attorney

I joined the National Crime Victim Law Institute as a staff attorney six months ago, and in this brief period, my conception of criminal procedure has shifted. Specifically, I have come to understand that there is a fundamental limitation on the state’s ability to adequately represent the interests of crime victims in all situations.

Prior to coming to NCVLI, I was an Assistant Attorney General and Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Colorado for seven years. My job was to represent the state in criminal appeals. At the time, I believed that representing the interests of society would necessarily include serving the interests of the victim.

Now that I work strictly as a victims' rights attorney, I've come to realize that I was operating without a full understanding of the victims’ role in the criminal justice system.

It is now clear that the only cases that were reaching the appellate level were those in which a victim’s interest coincided with the interests of the state. I know now that as often as a victim’s interests coincide with the state, those interests diverge, and the state cannot be the victim’s voice. This may seem a small epiphany to those of you who have been in the victim’s rights world for years, but I had always adhered to the traditional view that it is the state that protects victims.

The Maryland case of Lopez-Sanchez v. State was elucidating. NCVLI submitted an amicus brief in the case in support of the Petition for Certiorari filed by Russell Butler, the Executive Director of the Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center, Inc., and Neil Quinter, Esq., who directly represented the victim, Oscar Antonio LopezSanchez. In that case, the victim was requesting restitution for lost wages when he was shot in the back, paralyzed, and unable to work. In violation of the victim’s rights, the district attorney proposed to the court — and the court ordered — an amount of restitution that was significantly less than that which would adequately compensate the victim for his losses.

I had previously dealt with restitution as an Assistant Attorney General. In one case, the victim was denied her right to restitution because the prosecutor failed to request restitution on her behalf. I had argued that a prosecutor cannot waive a victim’s right to restitution. In this case, the prosecutor’s error in failing to request restitution was inadvertent, and it was the prosecutor who appealed the court’s restitution order. As such, I was able to step into the traditional role of the state as protector of the victim’s interests. The prosecutor’s actions demonstrate

that even when the state does not agree or does not recognize or admit error, there is an independent voice that needs to be heard on such issues — the victim’s voice.

I continue to believe that a state’s attorney can represent victims’ interests. For example, in a case in Utah, an Assistant Attorney General who was seeking to maintain the privacy of a victim’s records in a sexual assault case reached out to NCVLI and requested a complementary brief. Similarly, in a restitution case in Tennessee, an Assistant Attorney General was open to receiving assistance from NCVLI in researching a jurisdictional issue in trying to uphold a trial court’s revision of restitution on appeal. In both these cases, the state’s attorney recognized that although the victim and state’s interests were aligned, the victim had a particular interest in the outcome of the proceeding — one that was unique from the interests of the state. While I certainly continue to believe that the state can be a strong advocate for the victim, I now recognize that victims need independent legal representation.

STUDENT PROFILE Marcel Green, who graduates this year from Lewis & Clark Law School, enrolled in the Crime Victim Litigation Clinic in order to deepen his understanding of human rights issues in general and victims’ rights issues in particular. He also hoped to gain some practical experience in lawyering and advocacy through exposure to the mechanisms and instruments available to a human rights organization and how those tools are applied to real-life situations.

His project was to research the PROTECT Act, the law that criminalizes traveling overseas to have sex with minor children. “My experience as a clinic student went beyond my expectations,” he says. “I was not only allowed input into which project I chose, but was similarly given tremendous responsibility in how I managed my ‘case.’ Under the guidance of my supervising attorney I was able to initiate, refine, and pinpoint my research to achieve the goals set out from the beginning. Moreover, the camaraderie shared between students and attorney was helpful in making the clinic an intellectually stimulating environment.”

After graduation, Marcel plans to pursue his interest in criminal and human rights law with a career involving indigent criminal defense and victim’s rights law. While these areas seem opposed, Marcel's goal is to work to ensure access to justice and guarantee the basic rights of ordinary citizens everywhere.

Page 6

ncvli.org

spring/summer 2004

ADVOCATE SPOTLIGHT: WASHINGTON COALITION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT PROGRAMS by Liani Jean Heh Reeves, NCVLI Staff Attorney Building relationships with sexual assault coalitions is an essential component of the Sexual Assault Coalition Technical Assistance Program, which NCVLI instituted in the fall of 2003 under a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women. There are 23 coalitions across the country working on the front line to combat sexual violence at the national, state, and local levels.

The Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs (WCSAP) is a wonderful example of an organization with a strong community focus and commitment to social change. As a membership agency of 42 community sexual assault programs throughout Washington state, WCSAP is responsible for exchanging information, training, and expertise with its members. These member programs, in turn, serve victims, the general public, friends, family and others whose lives have been affected by sexual assault.

The Washington Coalition assists its members through its Advocacy Education, Legal Services and Prevention Services, and Organizational Services Departments. The Advocacy Education Department is responsible for providing technical assistance, developing resources — such as the WCSAP general newsletter and its education journal, The Research and Advocacy Digest — and planning training events. The agency holds training events for advocates, prevention educators, mental health practitioners, and criminal justice personnel. Past events have covered subjects such as therapist core training, providing effective services for elder survivors of sexual assault, sibling issues and sexual assault, and reclaiming healthy sexuality after sexual assault.

WCSAP's Legal Services Department was established in 2002 to deliver training and technical assistance to legal advocates, civil attorneys and other legal service providers working with sexual assault victims. The legal

program is designed to improve access by victims to resource materials, provide referrals for legal assistance, share information with agencies statewide regarding legal services, and strengthen relations between legal service advocates and community advocates.

The Prevention Services Department and Resource Center has adopted a model of community development that taps local resources in prevention initiatives. The Department works in partnership with colleges and universities, interfaith communities and marginalized populations to implement sexual violence prevention programs throughout the state.

The Organizational Services Department provides technical assistance, training, and support to coalition member agencies regarding board development, management practices and guidance toward meeting state accreditation standards.

While WCSAP does not directly serve sexual assault survivors, it has advocated on behalf of victims at state and national forums, including the Crime Victims Compensation Advisory Committee, Department of Corrections Victims’ Council, Washington State Sexual Assault Services Advisory Committee, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, CDC National Sexual Violence Prevention Conference Planning Committee, Center for Effective Public Policy and the National Organizaton for Women.

WCSAP's focus on prevention initiatives and post-trauma services for victims of sexual violence make it an important resource for Washington state, a strong member of the coalition network, and a supportive partner in the field of sexual assault work.

To learn more about the Washington Coalition for Sexual Assault Programs, visit www.wcsap.org

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, Continued from Page 1

incredibly exciting moment in the history of crime victims’ rights. These new clinics represent a five-fold increase in the ability of crime victims to have their voices heard clearly and their legal rights enforced in criminal cases.

Importantly, each clinic will do more than represent individual crime victims; they will be actively involved in creating a network of services by developing partnerships with law enforcement, the judiciary, the private bar, law schools, graduate schools and other service providers.

victims’ rights are recognized as part of the criminal justice system, rather than seen as an encroachment on that system. A future that embraces a holistic approach – litigation plus education – that will not only lead to crime victims’ rights being enforced by our courts, but will also lead to crime victims’ rights becoming an integral part of the culture of the criminal justice system. It is an exciting moment and an exciting future – we will keep you posted on the successes, challenges, and outcomes of the Project.

This Project is a first step into the future. At its end, we hope to have a collection of promising practices and models of flourishing victims’ rights clinics. If we are successful, we will be creating a future in which crime

In the coming months, NCVLI will issue an RFP for an additional three state victim clinics to be opened in 2005.

That RFP will be posted on NCVLI’s website, www.ncvli.org, as soon as it becomes available.

Page 7

spring/summer 2004

ncvli.org

LIFE STORIES: THE VICTIMS WE WORK WITH

by Joanna Tucker Davis, NCVLI Staff Attorney

Twenty-six years ago, Jane D.,1 a 17-year old, was on a hiking and camping trip with three close friends. It should have been an opportunity to have fun, enjoy nature, and bond with each other. Instead, the girls' lives were horrifically altered when a group of masked men brandishing weapons robbed, assaulted and repeatedly raped them.

Five men were arrested, indicted and charged with armed robbery and various sex crimes. Jane D. testified at two preliminary hearings. Ultimately, the men were offered plea bargains and received sentences ranging from four to 15 years of prison time. Still reeling from the crime, and completely inexperienced with the criminal justice system, Jane D. was only allowed in the courtroom when she testified at the two preliminary hearings and during the sentencing proceedings. She knew only what she was told by the prosecutor and read in the newspaper.

Jane D. moved forward with her life, but she still needed to know and understand what had happened during the criminal proceedings in order to close this terrible chapter in her life. Years after the crime, she contacted the courts and the prosecutor’s office in order to get the transcripts and records of the case. Instead of cooperation and sympathy for her quest, Jane D. hit a brick wall. She was continually told that some other person was responsible for the records. When she did receive answers, they were conflicting. Originally, she was told that it would cost her up to $3,000.00 to get the records, then told that the records were lost in a basement, and finally that they had been destroyed in a flood. Worst of all, the people Jane D. contacted for help acted as if her desire to be fully informed about the crime was abnormal and illegitimate.

Jane D. turned to the National Crime Victim Law Institute for help. Linda Leavitt, a law student in Lewis & Clark Law School's Crime Victim Litigation Clinic, researched

the state’s Freedom of Information Act to investigate any possible legal recourse and discovered that only local residents had the right to request official records. NCVLI also made phone calls and wrote letters as a victim organization and was able to obtain, at no charge, a copy of the court file in the case containing witness lists, motions, the clerk’s notes, and affidavits submitted by law enforcement.

NCVLI’s help was invaluable to Jane D.: “After years of trying to obtain my court records and transcripts and meeting nothing but resistance, I can’t explain what it meant to have someone not only understand why I wanted them but also offer to help me get them. After contacting NCVLI, I felt such relief to finally have someone on my side. I always felt like I had to defend myself and my reasons for wanting the transcripts and records, as if it was wrong for me to ask for them. Talking with the staff at NCVLI was the opposite, and their understanding of my need to see my records helped validate my efforts so far.”

Federal and state laws that give crime victims rights to receive information and documents about criminal cases are often complex and difficult to navigate. The people responsible for these documents are not always cooperative or informed about the rights and needs of crime victims. This case highlights the importance of the laws passed to protect victims like Jane D. These laws can only benefit crime victims if they are honored and enforced.

In the past 26 years, many laws have been passed to protect crime victims. Still more are needed. Jane D.’s experience reveals the crucial need for crime victims’ attorneys to protect these rights in the criminal justice system both through litigation and old fashioned legwork.

1

A fictitious name is being used to protect the privacy of the victim.

National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School 10015 SW Terwilliger Boulevard Portland, OR 97219 www.ncvli.org

Page 8