Victim's rights debate ends without a resolution

Ian Mayer Arizona Daily Wildcat Deputy Pima County Attorney David White (right) defends proposed victim's rights legislation while opponents, defense attorneys Ralph Ellinwood (center) and Robert Hirsh, listen last night in the James E. Rogers Law Center.

The debate, titled "Victim's Rights vs. Defendant's Rights," is the first of a series co-organized by Gail Leland, of the local chapter of the Parents of Murdered Children, freelance photographer Amy Zuckerman and writer Karen Nystedt.

Zuckerman and Nystedt collaborated on a book entitled Point of Fracture, intended to focus on the victims of violent crime, not the trials that follow.

Deputy Pima County Attorney David White, who had the first word in the debate at the James E. Rogers Law Center, opened the forum by saying victims of crime who seek protection of their rights are "asking no more than the criminals.

"You don't have rights to squat. Victims get treated like pieces of evidence," said White, a prosecutor in the trial of Scott Nordstrom, who was convicted in December of killing six people in connection with the 1996 robberies of the Moon Smoke Shop and Tucson Firefighters Association Union Hall. "Victim's rights are more important than just hoping they get a good prosecutor."

Steven Twist, principal author of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would outline and protect the rights of crime victims, said his proposal is a "modest" approach to helping victims and their families deal with the aftermath of a crime.

If passed, the main points of the five-section legislation would allow victims to:

• Have a reasonable notice of, and not to be excluded from, all public proceedings relating to the crime

• Submit a statement at all public proceedings to determine a release from custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea or a sentence

• Be given reasonable notice of a release or escape from custody relating to the crime

• Have their interests considered in a trial free from unreasonable delay.

But Tucson defense attorney Robert Hirsh said victims already have these rights, and the legislation could diminish the accused's right to a fair trial.

"We're not against victim's rights," Hirsh said. "What defense laws do is stand up for constitutional rights - to give everybody a degree of protection from an overbearing state."

In reply to Hirsh's comment that these laws already exist, Twist said, "Why not enshrine them in the Constitution?"

Twist said it is unfair to exclude victims from the courtroom during witness testimony if they themselves are also ordered to testify, and that defendants often choose to waive their right to a speedy trial to cause unnecessary delays.

Tucson defense attorney Ralph Ellinwood responded that having a witness present during other testimony would be detrimental to a fair trial.

"Hidden in this pernicious document is to give the ability of the party in power the guise to tamper with the fundamental rights of citizens," he said.

Ellinwood added that it is still possible for someone wrongly accused to go prison or be executed for crimes they did not commit, and that a trial should not be a forum for a victim to enact revenge.

"The fact that the government has charged them is nothing; no one is a criminal until the jury convicts them as one," he said.