Burden of Proof
Constitutional Rights For Victims
Aired April 14, 1997 - 12:30 a.m. ET(Unrelated segment deleted)
FRED GOLDMAN (November, 1996): Sadly, as long as there is murder, I won't be able to prevent families from having the nightmare experience that we had, but, hopefully, if the system becomes more in tune with victims, victims won't find themselves re-victimized by the justice system after they've been victimized by a criminal.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, ANCHOR: Fred Goldman on a mission and Jim McDougal faces the music, coming up next on BURDEN OF PROOF.
ANNOUNCER (voice-over): This is BURDEN OF PROOF with Greta Van Susteren and Roger Cossack.
VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF. Roger is off today.
Joining us is Fred Goldman, who, along with other crime victims, is campaigning for a constitutional amendment to protect victims.
(Unrelated segment deleted)
And now we turn to victims' rights, and our guests today include Fred Goldman whose name is synonymous with victims' rights.
Fred, first of all, you want a constitutional amendment to protect victims' rights. Why should it be in the Constitution?
FRED GOLDMAN, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ADVOCATE: I think it's almost, you know, a -- well, it is amazing to me that it isn't and -- for the simple purpose that victims as a group, 40 million per year, are not protected in the Constitution in the United States. There is no provision in the Constitution to protect victims, but there are four amendments to the Constitution and guarantees granted by the Constitution for defendants. We are in a nation in which 5 percent of all crime in this country is committed by that small percentage. Ninety-five percent of us are victims already or potential victims, and for the majority of this nation not to be protected in a court of law is an outrage. Absolute outrage.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Mark Klaas, you are the father of Polly Klaas, perhaps the other word synonymous with victims' rights in this country. Does it really belong in the Constitution, or do victims' rights properly belong in a legislative function?
MARC KLAAS, POLLY KLAAS' FATHER: Well, Greta, victims' rights have been legislated in at least -- well, in almost every state, I believe. There are constitutional amendments in 29 separate states. They all tend to pass by about 80 percent when they do get on the ballot. However, they are not really paid much attention to. Just like the defendants of crime, the people that have four amendments that have been legislated or -- I'm sorry -- that have been added to the U.S. Constitution to defend them and protect them, victims of crime need a few words. As Fred just said, there's not one word talking about victims of crime. We need a constitutional amendment to give us basic rights, basic dignities so that what happens in the future -- so that other people aren't kicked out of the courtroom like I was after that terrible outrage by my daughter's killer.
VAN SUSTEREN: Leslie, you're opposed to a constitutional amendment, but you're sitting next to Fred Goldman who lost his son, to Mark Klaas who lost his daughter. Why shouldn't the victims have a right, and why shouldn't it be in the Constitution?
LESLIE HAGIN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL-DEFENSE ATTORNEYS: Well, it's a horrible tragedy, and I cannot even imagine what it's like to lose a child. That is -- must be horrendous, but the National Association of Criminal-Defense Lawyers is not opposed to victims being treated with dignity and fairness, but I think, as Mr. Goldman said -- he actually has highlighted what I think is the primary issue here. We've never in 200 some odd years amended the United States Constitution to protect the majority, those who are able to move the political machinery on their behalf, and victims are -- the victims of crime are very sympathetic to the majority, and the Constitution is there to protect the unpopular. That Constitution is the document that is the envy of the free world.
VAN SUSTEREN: I don't think Fred feels too protected, though.
GOLDMAN: I suggest you're wrong. The Constitution is there to protect all citizens of this country...
HAGIN: Absolutely.
GOLDMAN: ... regardless of who you are. The Constitution is already protecting criminals, and I say criminals because the enormous percentage of the defendants that come in to a trial are already criminals...
HAGIN: Well, the enormous...
GOLDMAN: ... and to suggest that by not giving -- that the victims in a trial are already being treated with dignity bespeaks -- the reality of what goes on in a courtroom...
HAGIN: May I finish my thought?
GOLDMAN: Certainly.
HAGIN: It's...
VAN SUSTEREN: But, Leslie...
HAGIN: It's absolutely clear that, in California, for example, you had either through the California constitution or California statutes all the rights that this amendment would say that you would have. There is nothing in this amendment that would give you or Mr. Klaas anything that the two of you did not have in those California courts...
KLAAS: Except it would be...
HAGIN: ... and statutes. It's just -- I would say that it's just not true that these victims' statutes are not being upheld.
KLAAS: Therefore, criminals should be protected by the Constitution of the United States, yet victims shouldn't. You know, this is coming from a lady who represents an organization that categorically denies victims and victim families access to courtrooms. They subpoena us so that we can't even get into courtrooms.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. We need to take a break.
HAGIN: That's completely untrue.
VAN SUSTEREN: When we come back, we'll actually go through the provisions that Fred Goldman would like to see in the Constitution to protect victims. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Q&A -- How many states have constitutional provisions relating to victims' rights?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN GRAPHIC)
Q&A -- How many states have constitutional provisions relating to victims' rights?
ANSWER -- 29.
SOURCE -- The Third Branch.
(END GRAPHIC)
VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome back.
We're talking to Fred Goldman who's a representative of Safe Streets, and he wants a new amendment to the Constitution, one to protect victims.
Fred, you and I don't disagree that victims need to be respected more and that the system needs to do something more for the victims. I'm not so sure, looking at the provisions, whether or not this is something that we don't already have but needs to be enforced, and let me talk to you about the different provisions. For instance, the first one is the right to be notified of and not be excluded from public proceedings relating to violent crime affecting their lives and their family. I don't disagree with that, but I think the prosecutors aren't doing their job. They're not notifying the victims. Do you disagree with that?
GOLDMAN: Well, let's assume that's true. Then they need to be mandated to be certain that they have an obligation to be notified, and on the assumption that it is correct -- and it is correct, I should say, that -- in I think it's 29 states, there are amendments to constitutions guaranteeing supposedly those rights. However, constant federal laws are used to negate those. It was just done in Okla -- for the Oklahoma City case. There was a provision ordered by the President the other day that victims be allowed to attend, and yet there are still efforts going on in the court to overturn that. The fact is that it should be literally a slam dunk decision to at least create equity. There's this belief that the amendment is intended to give more rights to a victim than the defendant has. We're asking for, I think, four rights compared to 15 that the defendant already has. One of them is almost equal to be assured that we can attend -- or be assured that there will be a -- and I'm using my terms -- a speedy trial.
VAN SUSTEREN: Which -- I'm glad you raised that, Fred, because I'll tell you -- you know, that speedy trial provision here, which is another aspect of it -- I'll tell you I think the single most difficult problem in the criminal case involving O.J. Simpson was the fact that he demanded a speedy trial, and the criminal prosecution never was able to get ready for the trial, and, in fact, that's why your lawyer, Dan Petrocelli, was so successful in the civil case, one of the reasons, because he had plenty of time. GOLDMAN: But the other side of that, Greta, is, more often than not, the defense delays and delays and delays and delays a trial until they're ready to have a speedy trial...
VAN SUSTEREN: That -- I will concede that is true lots of times.
GOLDMAN: ... and during that period of time, the victims' families are sitting there in never never land without any justice or even the beginning process of justice, and that's inequitable.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Jim. What do we do about the prosecutors? The amend -- the one proposal is that the victims be notified of the proceedings. I mean, how does the constitutional amendment get through to these prosecutors to use simply good manners to tell the victims, "This is what's going on in the case involving your loved one." What does a constitutional amendment do?
JIM WOOTEN, SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE: If you've been involved in the court system, you all know that the caseloads of prosecutors are crushing, and what we're saying is, "We'd like you, as a matter of good manners, to make sure that the victims know all the various steps in the proceedings." We're saying we don't want it to be good manners. We want it to be an enforceable right, and it...
VAN SUSTEREN: How do you enforce it, though? I mean, suppose...
WOOTEN: Well...
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, what good does that do?
WOOTEN: We're going to give a right -- in the version that was introduced by Senators Kyl and Feinstein today that we were speaking about today -- we'll give them a right to go to another judge and say, "Look, we didn't get included in this proceeding, and we want to be there."
But let me make three points, and Leslie sort of brought it up, and you allude to it a little bit, too. Number one, if everybody thinks these are so great, that the state constitutions have them, they're in statutes, they're already being -- you know, they could be enforced by the prosecutors already, why not put it in the Constitution so that they will have standing to enforce them?
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Leslie, why not?
HAGIN: It's absolutely unnecessary. As I said, there's a world of difference between state statutes or even state amendments -- those are very different -- state constitutional amendments -- state constitutions have historically been very different documents. Many of them read like very complex statutory regimes and, in fact, your amendment -- the Senators Kyl-Feinstein amendment actually reads with statutory specificity. The national amendment -- the national Constitution and an amendment to the national Constitution is a very, very different thing. The founders wrote that document, that basic charter, which also, by the way, calls for most state crimes -- or most crimes being handled in the state systems... VAN SUSTEREN: But we...
HAGIN: So if you wanted to amend the state constitutions...
VAN SUSTEREN: But, Leslie, the...
HAGIN: ... that's fine.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, you can't object to this: to be notified immediately of a parole release or escape. You can't...
HAGIN: We don't object to any of it, Greta, but we say that the...
VAN SUSTEREN: But why not put it in the Constitution?
HAGIN: ... national Constitution is not the place to provide a litany of these entitlements, no matter how sympathetic the reason. It is never...
WOOTEN: Leslie, we had to file...
HAGIN: It has never been the place to provide...
WOOTEN: We had to file an amicus brief last year because a magistrate, not even a judge, overturned the Texas constitutional victims' rights amendment allowing involvement in the parole process. We're now getting all the organization on it. We're spending money. We're spending time. Why? Because it's not guaranteed in the Constitution. All of the rights that you advocate on the part of criminals -- and we even -- we don't change those...
VAN SUSTEREN: But the...
HAGIN: I don't -- may I just finish...
WOOTEN: All of those -- all those emanate...
HAGIN: May I finish...
WOOTEN: All of those emanate from the federal Constitution. Why shouldn't the rights for victims emanate from the federal Constitution?
HAGIN: Quickly...
KLAAS: Right on, Jim.
HAGIN: What I was trying to say earlier is -- and I don't know the facts of that particular case in Texas, but the reason is that victims are a very sympathetic group. They have -- the movement for victims' rights has been extraordinarily successful. In fact, the special bill that was enacted a couple of weeks ago to overturn a federal judge's ruling in the Oklahoma City case passed by a margin of 418 to 9 in the House of Representatives within two weeks, suspension of the normal rules, absolutely no debate, no hearings, all because victims wanted it. The state constitutions have been very receptive, and we don't disagree with anything in this federal amendment. In fact, we think that it's already, Greta, as you've already pointed out, largely provided for...
VAN SUSTEREN: See, I actually think...
HAGIN: ... and they are not being knocked down.
VAN SUSTEREN: I actually think that -- I think that many of these rights are actually there, but they're not enforced, and we've got to get people to enforce them. We need to take a break.
HAGIN: But the amendment will not make a prosecutor sensitive or law-enforcement...
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, we need to take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk more with Fred Goldman and Mark Klaas about victims and their rights or lack of them.
(BEGIN GRAPHIC)
LEGAL BRIEF -- Taxpayers in Las Vegas had the highest rate of audits in 1995, according to a study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). TRAC also found high audit rates in Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Jackson, Mississippi, and Boise; and the lowest rate in Louisville.
(END GRAPHIC)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ON THE DOCKET TOMORROW -- CAN YOU FIGHT THE IRS AND WIN?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome back.
Fred, before we broke, you wanted to answer Leslie.
GOLDMAN: Well, I think we need to understand, in all respect for Leslie and who she represents, what she is really saying. Trial attorney associations in this nation are consistently against any move to change the system from where it is, and by giving and guaranteeing victims constitutional rights, the same rights that are afforded defendants, it creates an equity, but that's a problem for defense attorneys because right now defense attorneys are successful on a regular basis of trying to run a trial without any mention, if they can, of the fact that there are people destroyed, victimized in any way. If it were up to a defense attorney, they wouldn't have families there, they wouldn't have the victim, if they're still living, and they wouldn't have any mention of these people because the focus, as far as a defense attorney, is desired to be only on the defendant and everything in the system bending over backward to assure him his rights or her rights, and what that really translates into -- "Let's see how many criminals we can put back on the street and the hell with everybody else."
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Fred, I've got to -- I just have to briefly...
HAGIN: (crosstalk) ... attack in answer to my point.
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm a trial lawyer, obviously, and there are -- is over a 95-percent conviction rate in the State of California. The reason that I support the system is because for the most part, not always, it works. Mark Klaas' -- the killer of his daughter is on death row. That worked.
KLAAS: It worked. However, I got thrown out of the courtroom when he said something terrible about me. You know that very well, too. Because his rights were protected. My family moved to San Jose and paid our own way. The state paid for his family to come and pull at the heartstrings of the jury, the guy that killed my daughter. This guy has been through this...
VAN SUSTEREN: Ultimately...
KLAAS: See, this is the system that has put this particular guy through so many times that the result is that my daughter lost. My daughter lost her life. This whole system of ours totally -- as Fred has said so many times, is totally generated to protect and allow these people to continually go out -- it's a system that works very well for the officers of the court, very well for the defendants of the court, but it doesn't work at all for the victims.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Mark, you get the last word. I'm sorry, Leslie. Mark gets the last word. Thanks to Fred Goldman, Mark Klaas, all our panelists today.
Tomorrow is, of course, D day, the deadline for filing your tax return. We'll look at an audit horror story and what Americans can do to fight the IRS and win. See you tomorrow.