- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,366
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
That bolded part seems too absolute - how could a defense attorney/team defend their client if there's an absolute prevention against interviewing, deposing, or discovering evidence from the accuser?(a) To secure for victims justice and due process throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim shall have the following rights, as further provided and as defined by the General Assembly, which shall be protected in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused:...
...to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;...
Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019) - Ballotpedia
I've been reading through this amendment and I'm concerned that parts of it could be abused against the accused.
Especially:
That bolded part seems too absolute - how could a defense attorney/team defend their client if there's an absolute prevention against interviewing, deposing, or discovering evidence from the accuser?
Agree, that wording seems to remove the ability of a defensive attorney and o defend the accused, does not pass the smell test.
Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019) - Ballotpedia
I've been reading through this amendment and I'm concerned that parts of it could be abused against the accused.
Especially:
That bolded part seems too absolute - how could a defense attorney/team defend their client if there's an absolute prevention against interviewing, deposing, or discovering evidence from the accuser?
Yeah, but especially given the brevity of the ballot question, I'm wondering if it'll pass anyway.That won't pass muster when challenged.
There are other things in "Marsy's Law" which are similarly problematic.
Yeah, but especially given the brevity of the ballot question, I'm wondering if it'll pass anyway.
I'm going to vote against it because of my concerns about it though.
Yeah, but especially given the brevity of the ballot question, I'm wondering if it'll pass anyway.
I'm going to vote against it because of my concerns about it though.
Clarification: It's not an absolute prevention against, it's an absolute right to refuse granted to the "victim".Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019) - Ballotpedia
I've been reading through this amendment and I'm concerned that parts of it could be abused against the accused.
Especially:
That bolded part seems too absolute - how could a defense attorney/team defend their client if there's an absolute prevention against interviewing, deposing, or discovering evidence from the accuser?
In addition to the rights referenced above, Marsy’s law would also result in the deprivation of an
accused’s constitutional right to confront witnesses and evidence against him or her. Marsy’s law would
give the victim the right to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence by refusing to be interviewed or
deposed by the accused or a person acting on behalf of the accused. This right of refusal will deny the
accused access to evidence arguably critical to the constitutional right to a fair trial. This would be a
violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…” Depriving defendants of their right to confront witnesses
would also deprive them of their constitutional right to due process.
It will pass, but I would vote against it. There are parts of it I am fine with, but parts of it are a bit excessive to me, and probably unconstitutionally vague.
I was reading into a couple states where it was overturned - Kentucky and Montana.It has passed in a number of states. Challenges to it will no doubt be forthcoming.
I agree with parts of it as well, but not the whole.
Actually there's a legal case ongoing about something like that: League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Boockvar
Essentially arguing that each part of the proposed amendment has to be voted on separately according to the PA constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?