Federal Judicial Center -- 2004
Go to Federal Manuals Table of Contents - Go to Resource Guide Table of Contents

        E  Rights of Victims to View Trial Proceedings

The Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997 (also known as the Victim Rights Act of 1997), Pub. L. No. 105-06 § 2, 111 Stat. 12 (1997), amends the Criminal Code to prohibit a district court from ordering any victim of an offense excluded from trial because the victim may, during the sentencing hearing, make a statement or present any information in relation to the sentence, or may testify as to the effect of the offense on the victim’s family. The law also presupposes that a victim’s presence in the courtroom should not be deemed to pose an unfair prejudicial danger to the defendant’s ability to get a fair trial in front of a jury. The law does not apply to victims who will testify at the guilt phase. President Clinton signed the law on March 19, 1997, as 18 USC 3510.

The bill was originally introduced because of concerns that certain victims would be unable to attend the Oklahoma City bombing trial as a result of a trial court’s ruling that excluded victims who would testify at the penalty stage of the proceedings. The ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The bill provided for retroactive application so that it would apply to the Oklahoma City case. In capital cases, victim-impact testimony may also be presented to prove an aggravating factor or to rebut a mitigating factor. House Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 105-28 (to accompany H.R. 924) (March 17, 1997). However, the law does not prohibit a judge from preventing victims who will testify during the guilt phase of trial from viewing the guilt phase.

Opponents of the bill cited a defendant’s right to a fair trial and an infringement of separation of powers. First, opponents claimed that the family members would be more emotionally distraught after seeing portions of the trial and would pass that emotion on to the jury when testifying during the penalty phase. Second, some have argued that this bill is unconstitutional, since its retroactive application infringes on the judicial branch’s management of ongoing criminal trials, including the Oklahoma City case.

In death-penalty cases, only one court has dealt with the new law. In the Oklahoma City bombing case, the court did not directly rule on the law, as it was presented in the guilt phase and the judge ruled that the objection was untimely. The court did hold that "[a]ll interests, including the public interest in proceeding with [defendant’s] trial, can be accommodated by construing Public Law 105-6 as simply reversing the presumption of a prejudicial effect on victim impact testimony of observation of the trial proceedings." United States v. McVeigh, 958 F. Supp. 512, 515 (D. Colo. 1997).