My question involves civil rights in the State of: Hawaii
1. Should victim-witness (VW) status be given substantive due process review to establish what constitutional rights, if any, are infringed by the government during criminal proceedings in
which the VW is forced to put those rights at risk of violation?
* I think this would need to happen BEFORE a criminal proceeding if there's to be any point, and the conclusions could be set down as law.
2. Should VW's be afforded procedural due process during the course of a criminal proceeding when their rights are violated / at risk of violation?
* I think the Mathews Test should be used here to determine if it's necessary to violate the VW's rights. This would mean giving the VW notice of a proposed deprivation of rights and then
giving the VW a hearing to argue against the deprivation.
Example of a VW deprivation that due process would fix:
* VW's in Hawaii are subject to Evidence Rule 615, which completely bans the VW from the entire trial without due process (a chance to argue against the blanket order).
* Members of the public and media have a constitutionally protected right to attend criminal trials. Thus, their exclusion can only be enforced after the judge provides... due process; notice,
and a hearing.
* VW's are apparently removed from the "public" and/or are stripped of their First Amendment rights, without due process.
3. What would it look like if VW's were given substantive and procedural due process protection under the 14th Amendment, and what is the justification for thus far denying it?
Here are a couple relevant local laws:
HI Victim Bill of Rights.......................http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...0801D-0004.htm
HI Witness Exclusion Rule 615............http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0001-0615.htm

