read the book its pretty good (but IANAL)

I wonder if Robert has read it and what he thinks of it

Anyone else watch the video of his last hearing? I was confused as to why Huber's father and Grosskreutz were even there and their statements solicited by the court commissioner

A Kenosha reporter answered my question on Twitter - this year, the state of Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative called Marcy's Law which added a host of "victims rights" during court process

which seems...kinda odd to me, since a trial is about the State vs the Defendant, but, ok. One of those rights is that victims can speak at any and every hearing.

Of course, the logic is somewhat flawed because this law stacks the deck against the defendant by insisting that there are "Victims" and, therefore, a crime must have occurred against them because they are "Victims"

all of this before the defendant has had a chance to even make a statement about their innocence

@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War) If you are referring to the Rittenhouse case that change in Michigan law has no bearing on a Wisconsin state court.

oh woops i wrote Michigan, haha

I meant Wisconsin. 🙂

thanks for picking that up

as a New Yorker, I get those two states confused all the time. I'll edit my post

Just making sure

This Marcy's Law has, apparently, been pushed across the country to other states by a billionaire in California

as in, it's not a homegrown initiative to amend the Constitution, just cookie-cutter text adopted by the states

However I think that Marcy’s law might be improperly being applied. Victim impact statements are generally applied to the sentencing stage. Anything before that would be unduly prejudice to the defense. Here in Washington state we have something call a Lacy’s law if memory serves that impact DUI incidents that add a provision to take the offenders car in an asset forfeiture kind of process and a case actually tested and the court ruled in favor of the defense that the entire law was unconstitutional. So we might see a legality challenge.

oh I agree. Victim Impact Statements are pretty standard at the sentencing stage.

Marcy's Law, specifically, gives "victims" the right to speak at ANY hearing....even, apparently, a pre-trial hearing like this to set bail

Hence i think that while some parts of the law are practical and easy to implement, parts of the law like this are wholly unnecessary and, perhaps, even unconstitutional with respect to he 6th Amendment

the*

I place "victims" in quotes because, well, it treats these parties as victims before it has been established that there are victims. The idea that there can be a victim before the defense has had a chance to make a case seems ethically questionable to me, but, hey.

I get the families of the people being heard but not on bail or in any proceeding other than sentencing. For instance a motion to suppress evidence a "victim" statement should bare no weight unless they actually witnessed the crime and not the videos online.

If 'Marcy's Law' as you describe is accurate, that is totally insane!

Watching Huber's interview on CNN weeks ago made me sick.

https://www.marsyslaw.us/what_is_marsys_law

"To be notified of specific public proceedings throughout the criminal justice process** and to be present and heard during those proceedings"**

emphasis added

and sorry it's Marsy's Law, not Marcy's Law

TL;DR: A billionaire in California started this organization after his sister was killed and the family encountered her killer in a grocery store a week later and weren't notified by the court that he was out on bail.

Some aspects of the law seem pretty reasonable, like notifying alleged victims after an alleged defendant is released on bail. I don't see any issue with that

But, as per usual with these things, the comprehensive list of points in this cookie-cutter amendment to states' constitutions includes too much.

including giving alleged victims the right to "be heard" at every proceeding

My main morale argument is against the declaration of victimhood before a trial has even begun. On principle I just don't think that this ensures a fair trial.

Mmm I agree with you

It sounds like it might be unconstitutional on those grounds

the language of this organization and in the cookie-cutter amendments adopted by states doesn't use the term "alleged"

just declares them victims. so that's problematic

> TL;DR: A billionaire in California started this organization after his sister was killed and the family encountered her killer in a grocery store a week later and weren't notified by the court that he was out on bail.
>
> Some aspects of the law seem pretty reasonable, like notifying alleged victims after an alleged defendant is released on bail. I don't see any issue with that
@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War) I think the courts had a mechanism in place to allow for notification but only on request by the victims family. I know I have seen it in other states like Florida for one but it is usually in domestic matters. The victims or their family are allowed to be present but have no say other than in sentencing.

If my sister was killed and I encountered her killer in a grocery store... They would need 🧹 clean up in the isle he was in.

@xephael I share that view

Cleanup aisle 5

If I was a billionaire, you better be hiding better than Osama did😂

https://waow.com/2020/11/09/gun-used-by-rittenhouse-in-kenosha-killings-was-bought-in-ladysmith-complaint-states/