please explain interesting victim impact testmoney!!?
please go over victim impact testimony and how it could violate the rights of the accused?
especially on capital murder cases! thanks! :)
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
I had to snicker at this question! Many could write a book on it, but I'll just try to give you some good talking points for your "discussion."
Victim impact testimony are statements usually made to the judge and or jury during various phases of a criminal trial. The statements are usually made orally, but can be made through written testimony or videotaped as well. In criminal law, we really didn't see this testimony come about until the late 1970s, even then, it was not always permitted during penalty/sentencing phases of the trial. Some states allow this testimony after sentencing has already taken place. Check out this caselaw: Payne v. Tennessee 1991 (US Supreme Court)
For years now attorney's in various walks of law have debated that this testimony violates the guilty party's 8th amendment. This amendment deals with excessive fines, sentences, etc. as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The common argument is that the testimony will influence the judge or jury prior to sentencing.
Now, as far as capital murder cases. Victim impact testimony is under the microscope during the penalty phase. The testimony can not suggest or even hint to what they feel the appropriate punishment should be. If they do, defense would in most cases claim it to be prejudicial and inflammatory. I will list this case law below, but in an interesting case in California, the victim's family was allowed to show a 21 minute video to the jury, in a capital case. The video was complete with narration, music, etc. It strayed (in my opinion) from traditional impact testimony. The general guide for the content of impact testimony is "How the loss of the victim, impacted family members or friends." There is SOME latitude, but not much.
Here is some of the cases you should be concerned with:
Payne v. Tennessee 1991
People v. Kelly (2007)
Kelly v. California (2008)
I tired to keep it short but substantive. Hope this helps!Source(s): Professional experience. Precedent stated in message content.
- theronLv 44 years ago
you could no longer. The Fed below the two Bush and Obama has persevered printing unabated, and has been injecting some distance previous what Congress ever authorized. Ron Paul's HR1207 to truly audit the fed has 179 sponsors, yet whilst it jumped to that selection, a Senator without postpone tried to entice its tooth via passing interior the Senate version of a bill a call for that some severe profile factors be audited, one time only, such because of the fact the bailout of AIG. This thoroughly ignores the trillions in backstage credit injections the Fed has refused to respond to questions approximately, below freedom of records act request, because of the fact 'it is not a governmental enterprise'. It additionally ignores that presently the regulation prevents a real audit and that the desire for one is ongoing, no longer a one time adventure. do no longer you think of letting a non governmental enterprise with private banks as shareholders play with our money at nighttime is a unfavourable coverage? Write your rep to sponsor HR 1207, and write your Senator that the factitious that does no disguise audit of economic coverage and injections previous those already commonplace, misses the ingredient.