PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, FEDERALISM, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, St. Louis, MO. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., at the Old Federal Courthouse, 11 North Fourth Street, St. Louis, MO, Hon. John Ashcroft (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Senator ASHCROFT. Good morning. Welcome to our hearing on the important issue of protecting victims' rights. I look forward to this opportunity to explore the role that the Federal Government can have in safeguarding the rights of victims. This is both an appropriate time and place to have such a discussion, and to examine the Constitutional rights of victims. It is an appropriate time because today is the last day of National Victims' Week, a week of each year that we set aside especially to try and think about serious ways that we could mitigate the victimization of individuals as it relates to criminal behavior. The old courthouse is an appropriate place for this hearing because of the important role this particular Courthouse has played in the struggle for individual rights. Back in Washington, DC, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been considering a proposed Constitutional amendment to put the rights of crime victims on at least equal footing, with the rights of those who commit crimes against the victims. That proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 3, is cosponsored by Senator John Kyl of Arizona and Senator Diane Feinstein of California, and has been referred to the Constitution Subcommittee. This is a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposal will give victims of violent crime a Federal Constitutional right to participate at critical stages in the criminal justice process. I plan to hold an executive business session of the Subcommittee the week of May 10 to consider the matter further. Now, what executive business session of the Subcommittee means, is that the bill would be marked up. And when you mark up a bill, you consider proposed amendments, you make the final (1) adjustments of a particular bill or resolution for purposes of sending it to the full committee or ultimately to the floor of the Senate. And I hope that today's field hearing will help inform that discussion, will help shape that final hearing with the thoughts and experiences of Americans outside Washington's Beltway. I, personally, have long supported the recognition and protection of the rights of crime victims. For too long victims were the forgotten individuals in our criminal justice system. As the Warren Court expanded the rights of criminals well beyond their original conception, the rights of victims were all too frequently ignored. In the name of promoting individual rights, the Warren Court sided with criminal defendants over State prosecutors, leaving the individual rights of victims entirely out of the Court's calculus. As a consequence, movements started in many states to guarantee victims of crime a place at the table of justice. Many States attempted to guarantee victims the essential components of "due process," notice of the proceedings affecting them, and an opportunity for victims to be heard, as well as the prosecutor and the defendant to be heard. I had the privilege of supporting this process in Missouri during my time as Governor. It was during my time as Governor that I signed the law putting the Missouri Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in this State. The measure was then approved overwhelmingly by the people of Missouri. Unfortunately, these State efforts, while critically important, fail to provide sufficient protection for crime victims. When the Federal Constitutional rights created for criminal defendants clash with the statutory framework or the Constitution of any State, Federal judges impose and State judges are required to impose a Supremacy of the Federal Constitution's laws, and as a result, judges are always forced to set aside, in a conflict, the State law about victims' rights in favor of the Federal regard for the criminal defendant's rights. The only way to ensure that the victims are treated with dignity and fairness is to enshrine the rights of victims in the Federal Constitution so that they won't be displaced in Federal courts or as a result of Federal rulings by Federal judges. So, the proposed amendment that we are considering in Washington would do that; it would provide enforceable Federal rights for victims of violent crime to be present at trial and during sentencing, and to have input in parole decisions, and to receive notification of a prisoner's release or escape. This last March, the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Washington, DC. At that time, I raised two concerns about the proposed amendment that I would like to explore at today's hearing: First, I am concerned that the proposed amendment fails to provide any explicit rights to the victim when an executive commutes the sentence of a convicted criminal. At every other critical stage in the process from the trial, to sentencing, to release the amendment guarantees victims the right to notice, and where appropriate, the right for an opportunity to be heard. It just doesn't make sense to me to provide these important rights to victims when the court imposes the original sentence and when the parole board considers deviating from the sentence, but to deny this same opportunity or right to them when an executive considers reducing the sentence with a stroke of his pen. What good does it do to amend the Constitution to guarantee a right to be present at sentencing if the State retains the right to revisit and to revise the sentence without notice to the victims? This is, in my judgment, an omission in the law that is worth rectifying. The recent experience of the Lawrence family has made clear the profound impact that a commutation can have on the victims of crime. I am grateful that members of the Lawrence family asked to testify at any victims' rights hearing to share their tragic personal experience, and I'm pleased as well, that representatives of the organization of Parents of Murdered Children, a victims advocacy group, have been able to join us as well. I know that all of you have to wrestle with the serious problems that these tragedies revisit for you, but I appreciate the fact that you are willing to endure that kind of discomfort to use a word that is inadequate to explain what is happening-in order to try and help avoid it for other people. The second concern I have about the proposed Constitutional amendment we'll be addressing today is that it limits its important protection to the victims of violent crime. While violent crimes certainly bring home the need to protect victims, there are victims of nonviolent crimes, crimes like major elderly fraud where people lose their homes or where there are serious nonviolent affronts to individuals that deserve our protection as well. The Warren Court certainly did not distinguish between violent and nonviolent crimes when it created the rights for criminals. That doesn't seem to be any better basis for making a distinction between violent and nonviolent rights of crime victims. Indeed, the victims of some nonviolent crimes, such as fraud where criminals carefully select their victims to prey on the elderly or the ailing, are among the most deserving of protection. Victims of elder-fraud and identity theft should not be left unprotected. Our second panel this morning will include the discussion of this issue, as well as the application of the proposed Constitutional amendment to cases of domestic crime. The tragic experiences of crime victims underscore the need for vigorous protection of the rights and interests of individuals who have been the victims of criminal activity. Frankly, there are very few Government functions that are more important than helping the people who are victims of crimes. The proposed Constitutional amendment makes necessary strides to guarantee victims a seat at the table to ensure that the rights of criminal defendants are not the only individual rights considered by judges and parole officers. However, there is still room for improvement, and I hope that today's hearing will help us move forward in an effort to improve this amendment that we ultimately hope to enshrine as a part of the Constitution of the United States. We can work together to provide crime victims with the full measure of protection they need and de serve. PANEL CONSISTING OF CAROL ANGELBECK, DIRECTOR, LEWIS & CLARK CHAPTER, PARENTS OF MURDERED CHILDREN, TROY, MO; MATA WEBER, PARENT OF A MURDERED CHILD; ANITA AND BUCK LAWRENCE, PARENTS OF WILLIE LAWRENCE, BIG FORK, MT; DAVID LAWRENCE, UNCLE TO WILLIE LAWRENCE, SON OF LLOYD AND FRANKIE LAWRENCE, SHELL KNOB, MO; AND RETHA LAWRENCE, AUNT TO WILLIE LAWRENCE, DAUGHTER OF LLOYD AND FRANKIE LAWRENCE, SHELL KNOB, MO STATEMENT OF CAROL ANGELBECK Senator ASHCROFT. It is pleasing now for me to have the opportunity to call up the witnesses for our first panel. Our first witness this morning is Carol Angelbeck from St. Charles, Mo. Ms. Angelbeck is the leader of the Lewis & Clark Chapter of Parents of Murdered Children. Tragically, Ms. Angelbeck's daughter, Mindy Griffin, was murdered on September 30, 1995. She has been active on the issue of victims' rights ever since. Ms. Angelbeck, thank you for coming to share your experiences with us, and we look forward to learning from you. Would you proceed with your testimony at this time. Ms. ANGELBECK. Thank you, Senator Ashcroft. Thank you for allowing me to speak. When our 24-year-old daughter, Mindy Griffin, was found raped and strangled in her Lake St. Louis condominium on September 30, 1995 Senator ASHCROFT. Can I interrupt you for a minute? Can staff do anything to elevate the sound? Are these for recording? These are not going to do anything then to help people in the room, so if you could, please speak up. It seems like people in the room are having trouble hearing, and I want people to hear your testimony. Pardon me. These will record the testimony, they are not amplifying your voice. Ms. ANGELBECK. Do you want me to start over? Ms. ANGELBECK. When our 24-year-old daughter, Mindy Griffin, was found raped and strangled in her Lake St. Louis condominium on September 30, 1995, by a complete stranger, my world stopped. I couldn't breathe, sleep, eat or do any of the normal, everyday tasks that we take for granted. The pain that a mother or father feels when the loss of a child occurs, especially with the violence of rape or murder, it's like a scream starting in your very soul, and it moves like a wave in the ocean, getting larger and larger until your whole being is engulfed in this pain. It is like watching my life from a distance. I have no idea how I made it through the wake and the funeral. I assume shock helps us make it through this hard time. I remember seeing Mindy lying in a coffin for the first time; also, Mindy's body being removed from her condominium in a body bag. I just knew it couldn't be my daughter, the baby that I brought into this world. Then, the reality hits you in the face, the first meeting with the police to identify items of my daughter's. The first time you are in court with the criminal justice system, everything is overwhelming. The same question keeps going through your mind: Why, God, why my daughter? I asked the police why that Sunday, and they said that Mindy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I ask: Is being in your own home the wrong place at the wrong time? I do not think so. We are no longer safe in our own home in our country. The city where Mindy lived had never had a homicide in the 20 years it was a city. We went through 3 years of living hell, with our minds fluctuating between why Michael Shane Worthington picked our daughter, and why did she have to die alone, and such a violent death. Our coroner said in court that it takes 4 to 7 minutes to die by strangulation, and Michael Worthington testified in court that he strangled Mindy twice. We went through three judges, many court delays caused by the defense attorneys. Joel Eisenstein was the first. He lost his license due to a Federal tax problem. Then came Rosenblum, Kessler, and Green. Mr. Green tried to make a deal with Judge Cundiff behind our back. That is the day I fully realized what our criminal justice was all about. We never had any dealings with the court and lawyers, so it was quite a shock for us. St. Charles prosecuting attorney, Tim Braun, our Prosecutor Ross Buheler, and victims assistant Maggie Lipman, have been very, very helpful during the 3 years. They kept us informed of all the court hearings. When Judge Cundiff offered a plea for life, we were told, and we requested a meeting with the judge. Mr. Braun and Mr. Buheler set up this hearing, and when I asked Judge Cundiff why he offered to plea for life instead of death, his exact words to me were he wanted the SOB to stand up in front of him and tell him what he did to my daughter. And I asked him: Did you look at a crime scene photo? Did you read the police reports? Did you read the coroner's reports? He answered "no" to all these questions. I said Judge Cundiff, you would know what he did to my daughter if you had done one of these three. I realized again the games that are played between judges and attorneys. The Judge asked if we would like him to remove himself from the case, and I said “yes.” This resulted in a 9-month delay. It is important for victims to be included in the justice system and to be able to work closely with the prosecutor attorney's office. In Missouri, we have a good Victims Program. House bill 325, if passed, would allow victims to be in the courtroom even if they are to testify. Missouri victims' rights is supposed to do mandatory notification if anything changes with the inmate. However, I believe it is just like the judges, the defense lawyers, and the prosecuting attorneys: They need to be educated also regarding victims' rights. It is often easier for them not to get involved with the victims. I understand in a capital murder, the court or the prosecuting attorney's office is to give information for notifying families of any changes. However, as a victim myself, I feel I should also be responsible for giving this information to the Attorney General's office to make sure they have a way to contact us of any changes. |