Should Funding Crime Victims' Rights Be a Justice Department Priority?

Recently, of course, the Trump Administration has been searching for ways to reduce federal government spending, searching for wasteful or duplicative programs. As part of that comprehensive effort, the Justice Department recently announced that some of its programs will be cut, including some programs involving services for crime victims. Catholic University law professor Mary Leary has recently published this op-ed calling attention to the cuts and urging the Department to exercise caution in cutting these programs. While I don’t know the details as well as Professor Leary does, I want to join her in generally urging the Department to maintain as much funding as possible for crime victim support, particularly for legal services to victims in criminal cases.

I’ve seen news reports that Attorney General Bondi is restoring some funding that was initially slated to be cut. I hope that some of the other funding can be restored as well. And, more important, going forward it is critical that funding for crime victims’ services continues to be one of the Justice Department’s priorities.

As one example of the cuts, the National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) had a substantial part of its funding slashed. In 2004, funding for NCVLI was linked to the passage of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). Since then, NCVLI has helped establish legal clinics in a number of states across the country, including in my home state of Utah. These clinics assist crime victims to protect their rights in criminal proceedings. I discuss some of these long-standing and important efforts by the legal clinics in my article about the history of the Crime Victims’ Rights Movement (at pp. 93-94).

One of the often-overlooked benefits of supporting crime victims in protecting their rights in criminal cases is that it allows an independent voice to be presented. Victim service providers help to amplify that voice, by supporting efforts of crime victims to present arguments that might otherwise be overlooked—creating a valuable and independent perspective on how criminal cases should proceed. An example comes from an amicus brief, which I helped NCVLI, the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC), and other crime victims’ rights organizations to file. This brief supported Dr. Carter Page’s motion to be recognized as a “crime victim” during the sentencing of Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith was an FBI agent who made false and material misstatements in a high-profile case. Specifically, Clinesmith provided false statements during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian Government. Clinesmith lied in an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to renew a FISA warrant to surveil Dr. Page’s private communications. Clinesmith’s false statements resulted in a warrant application that the FISC approved without having before it all relevant information.

My amicus brief for crime victims’ rights organizations explained why Dr. Page was directly and proximately harmed by Clinesmith’s interference with the fair judicial consideration to which he was entitled. This harm made Dr. Page a “crime victim” with protected CVRA rights. Accordingly, the organizations argued (without addressing, one way or the other, the merits or demerits of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation) Page was entitled to speak at Clinesmith’s sentencing. The brief explained:

This criminal case has been widely discussed across the country, with strongly held and differing views resolutely expressed. This brief, however, is entirely agnostic on any such views and any resulting political ramifications. Instead, this brief takes a more limited—but extremely important—foundational procedural position. Amici believe that in enacting the CVRA, Congress required this Court to hear from any victim who was harmed by the Defendant’s crime, with the definition of “victim” being expansive. And it is precisely because differing views exist about this case that hearing from the victim here is extremely important. If this Court grants Dr. Page the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement before it imposes sentence, then the public will have greater confidence in the case’s outcome—which is one of the reasons why Congress included victims in the criminal justice process by enacting the CVRA.

The issue was squarely presented to the district judge handling the matter, Judge James Boasberg, who surprisingly ducked the issue. Judge Boasberg ruled that he would allow Dr. Page to speak at sentencing for ten minutes as a matter of discretion, rendering it unnecessary for a formal determination of whether Dr. Page was a “crime victim.” But the important point is that, through crime victim advocacy, an additional perspective was heard on the how false warrant applications can have far reaching harms—highlighting an issue that otherwise might not have received judicial attention.

NCVLI also joined with Brad Edwards and me, when we advocated for victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization. A Florida district court rejected the victims’ efforts to throw out a non-prosecution agreement blocking prosecution of Epstein’s co-conspirators. We sought review in the Eleventh Circuit. And NCVLI filed an excellent amicus brief, arguing that Epstein’s victims should be able to press the case for prosecuting Epstein’s co-conspirators in Florida federal court. (Ultimately, Epstein’s lead co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was successfully prosecuted in the Southern District of New York.)

By highlighting NCVLI and NCVC, with whom I have worked frequently, I don’t mean to overlook many other crime victim service providers, including other legal service providers. These organizations form a vital part of contemporary criminal justice efforts to ensure that crime victims’ voices are heard. As Professor Leary points out in her op-ed, the modern crime victims’ rights movement traces its roots back to President Reagan’s 1982 Task Force on Victims of Crime. The Task Force found that the nation’s criminal justice system was “appallingly out of balance” for victims, with a “neglect of crime victims” that was “a national disgrace.” The Task Force identified the need to have Congress provide federal funding “to assist in the operation of federal, state, local and non-profit victim/witness assistance agencies that make comprehensive assistance available to all victims of crime.” That recommendation remains just as valuable today.

I began this post with a question: Should funding crime victims’ rights be a DOJ priority? Ultimately, each Administration and each Attorney General will have to answer that question for themselves. Fortunately, for this Administration, it appears that the answer is straightforward. President Trump has promised his Administration’s “unending support to every victim of crime.” As the process of reviewing crime victims’ funding moves forward, I hope that organizations providing legal services to victims in criminal cases—such as NCVLI, NCVC, and others—will receive the support that they deserve.

The post Should Funding Crime Victims’ Rights Be a Justice Department Priority? appeared first on Reason.com.