The twentieth anniversary of the Crime Victims' Rights Act

In 2004, the United States Congress passed the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act (the “CVRA”), codified at 18 USC § 3771, and the President signed it into law – effective October 30, 2004. Today, twenty years later, it is interesting to read Senator Kyl's legislative article on the CVRA, written shortly after the law took effect. Along with Steven Twist and Stephen Higgins, Senator Kyl described the law as part of a “civil rights movement” aimed at reforming the culture of criminal justice:

The CVRA is the latest passage in a four-decade-long civil rights movement. The victims' rights movement seeks to end the unfair treatment of crime victims by reforming the culture of the criminal justice system in the federal and state governments. Before the victims' movement gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, this country's criminal justice system had come to treat all crimes as acts committed solely against the community and, as a result, gave little or no recognition to the direct victims of crime. Believing that crimes are committed against both individuals and the community, the crime victims' rights movement has sought to guarantee the rights of crime victims through state and federal legislative processes. The movement has pushed through federal and state law reforms and even state constitutional changes to ensure that innocent victims of crime are respected by the justice system. These efforts have had limited success in securing enforceable rights for crime victims.

Senator Jon Kyl et al., On the Wings of Their Angels: Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 581 (2005).

Senator Kyl further asked: “Whether the CVRA has the power to change the legal culture in the United States will soon become clear as case law continues to evolve. A vigilant Congress, indeed a vigilant nation, will monitor the development of the law.”

Has legal culture changed today, twenty years later? As someone who has litigated CVRA cases across the country, I believe that the legal culture in the federal system has changed for the better. Although problems remain, crime victims now have the opportunity to assert their rights in federal cases—and have frequently done so. For example, shortly after the law's passage in 2006, the Ninth Circuit found that the CVRA attempted to make crime victims “independent participants in the criminal process.” Kenna v. U.S. District Court435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006). And in this case, the Ninth Circuit ordered a resentencing to give the victim an opportunity to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing.

My recent efforts in the USA versus Boeing Case illustrates how victims of federal crimes can take advantage of the CVRA, which I previously blogged about. While the last chapter in the Boeing Although the case has not yet been written, it is notable that the victims' families were able to file motions in this criminal case – successfully challenging the Justice Department's position that only the FAA was the “victim” of Boeing's false statements, and obtain a ruling from the Fifth Circuit that their rights must be enforced throughout the process.

The National Crime Victim Law Institute today hosted a virtual symposium on the CVRA and its legacy. The symposium will be published shortly here on the NCVLI website. I was one of the participants.

The panelists were all asked what the biggest challenge to victims' rights is today. And we all responded that legal advice for victims of crime remains the primary goal for protecting victims' rights in the future. It is hoped that access to legal services for crime victims will expand in the future and that crime victim rights under the CVRA will become available to more victims in more cases over time.