Fighting to Protect Sexual Assault Victims from a Pro Se Defendant

Just this week NCVLI joined longtime partner Arizona Voice for Crime Victims (ACVC) in a case before the Arizona Court of Appeals in which a self-represented defendant was granted permission by the trial court to personally cross-examine three women that he raped.  The victims in the case include two witnesses who were victims of prior rapes for which defendant was convicted and the vic

Fighting for Victim Privacy

In 2011 the Alaska Office of Victims’ Rights reached out to NCVLI for assistance in a sexual assault case where the victim’s privacy was in jeopardy.  The trial court had granted the defendant’s pretrial discovery motion ordering the victim to disclose sensitive, confidential, and privileged health care information, including possible mental health and substance abuse treatment records.

Read the Latest Crime Victim Law Update

Read the latest Crime Victim Law Update, NCVLI’s quarterly publication summarizing recent court decisions affecting victims’ rights in state and federal courts nationwide.  Click here to read. 

To access additional publications, visit NCVLI's Victim Law Library.

New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: United States v. Fair, --- F.3d ---, No. 09-3120, 2012 WL 5457679 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 9, 2012).

Defendant, convicted of criminal copyright infringement and mail fraud for the sale of pirated copies of outdated software, appealed the district court’s order of almost $750,000 in restitution to the corporate victim under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C.

New NCVLI Child-Victim Bulletin: Seeking Release Conditions and Protective Orders That Benefit Child-Victims

NCVLI is excited to announce the publication of a new Bulletin titled ”Seeking Release Conditions and Protective Orders That Benefit Child-Victims.”  To access this Bulletin, please visit NCVLI’s Safeguarding Child-Victims’ Rights Initiative page at http://law.lclark.edu/centers/national_crime_victim_law_

New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: Johnson v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety Standards and Training, — P.3d —, No. A147361, 2012 WL 5429461 (Or. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2012).

Petitioner, a private investigator whose license was revoked by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), sought judicial review of the revocation order, which was based in part on the determination that petitioner—while working for private criminal defense attorneys—interviewed crime victims without disclosing his true identity and role and without informing the victims of their right to refuse defense interviews.  The Oregon Constitution grants crime victims the right to refuse an interview request by a criminal defendant or anyone acting on the behalf of the cr

New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: United States v. Murray, --- F.3d ---, No. 11–20622, 2012 WL 5330889 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2012).

Defendants, separately convicted of various federal fraud charges arising out of a Ponzi scheme, appealed the district court’s order reopening their sentences and awarding about $17 million in restitution to the victims under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C.

New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: State v. Shepherd, — A.3d —, No. 2010-336, 2012 WL 5275420 (Vt. Oct. 26, 2012).

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, and sexual exploitation of a child, arising out of his sexual assault of a 10-year-old child-victim.  Defendant appealed the trial court’s order that he pay restitution for the costs of relocating the child-victim’s family to Hawaii that were not covered by state victims’ compensation program funds.  Defendant, who was the live-in nanny for the child-victim’s twin, sexually assaulted the child-victim over a period of several months.  The child-victim and his family lived in a small, rural t

New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: United States v. Keifer, No. 11-3942 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2012) (order).

Defendant created the fictitious McPherson Property Group and induced the victim-investor into purchasing worthless shares of the company.  Additionally, defendant opened bank and merchant accounts under 56 different names and received payment from numerous entities for work never performed.  The federal government eventually charged defendant with two counts of bank fraud, one count of uttering a forged and counterfeit security, and one count of fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.  The government later moved to dismiss the forged security charge, an

New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: New & Noteworthy Court Opinion: Kovaleski v. State, No. SC09-536, — So. 3d —, 2012 WL 5258677 (Fla. Oct. 25, 2012).

Defendant appealed, arguing that the statutory closure provision conflicted with the requirements established by the Supreme Court in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S.

Syndicate content

This project was supported in part by Grant No. 2008-DD-BX-K001, awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice.