Dear Source:
Being on the defense side of the coin, I'm betting the Attorney General's Office is not just a little taken aback by a Constitutional clause that would allow crime victims to testify – and I mean testify as in direct and cross examination – at a trial against someone who is alleged to have victimized them. This takes trial strategy out of the hands of the Attorney General and gives it, at least in part, to the victim. As unpalatable as it may sound, the victim has no Constitutional rights at trial. The Constitution attempts to protect citizens who may be wrongly accused.
The problem is the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Cross examination is allowed – mandated – as a Constitutional right of the accused. A mis-step like this could easily lose a case for the AG. Victims deserve a fair hearing of their case, but it is the defendants that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. People are different, some sympathetic witnesses, some not so sympathetic. While the victim could consult with the AG as to whether to testify, which they now have every right to do, a not-so-sympathetic victim adamant to testify could destroy a case, most probably on cross examination.
I suggest the Constitutional Convention, if allowed, request an Opinion from Attorney General Frazier on the matter before setting up some possible mistrials, probable appeals or outright losses based on a Clause wherein trial strategy is wrested from the hands of the Government. Leave trial strategy to the professionals.
I know some of my defense bar Brethren may ask "what are you doing??" but there it is. The Constitutional Convention may once again be barking up the wrong tree.
Kevin W. Weatherbee, Esq.
St. Thomas
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to visource@gmail.com.