Re: Who Has the Right to a Fair Trial
cbg, Yes I understand it's a restriction to protect the integrity of testimony. But I think the characterization of "being upset" over not being able to talk about the case is shallow. The results of not being able to talk about the case are A) prevents meaningful efforts in searching for a missing person; B) prevents meaningful collection of information (info available to the public) with which to file a civil suit against the defendant; and C) prevents discovery of other violations (ethical or constitutional, whether for benefit of the defendant/public/victim, whom all decidedly have interests in a fair trial).
If anything, upset is an understatement. It's not that I want to talk about it openly. The exclusion order forbids private conversations between family members at home, and consults with attorneys are embarrassingly fruitless. How can we reconcile the State's exclusion order with our right to petition?
I think the issue of my family's exclusion should have been given individuated review and that's all I can really say. Perhaps they would have articulated a reason to exclude (for example) me but not my sisters, and I would have accepted it.
llworking, I mentioned in the other thread that my family was told we could not have trial transcripts until the defendant has finished with his appeals. Prosecutors estimated around eight years. Talk about witness' memories changing... By the time we are allowed to read transcripts and contact witnesses, some will be dead, half will have moved away, and most will have forgotten the finer details. Documents will be lost, and evidence, degraded or destroyed. So your assessment of my grievances is inaccurate because the stakes are much higher than I seem to be able to get across. (Note: transcripts for this 3+ mo trial are estimated to cost around $10,000 so we must overcome that as well.)
How does it make sense that the victim could be the party-plaintiff in one cause but can be an excluded non-party using identical evidence/causes in another? What the State is doing is absurd.
My two roles as victim and witness are entirely separate? Then the State should separate them and respect the rights of each. Instead, the lines are blurred and the law of the land is usurped by a law of man (office of the public prosecutor is an advent of man versus all other aspects of criminal procedure which find its basis in the Constitution). What I mean is, instead of the constitution dictating how my rights are handled, I must rely on a prosecutor's discretion, which is just as subject to human error as the testimony he strives to protect.
For purposes of a fair trial, I readily accept that witnesses are more important than the mere existence of a victim. But it is callous of the State to overlook the victim just because it can. It doesn't represent civility or fairness, but instead showcases the ease with which government can wield arbitrary power.
As a final thought, again I agree that laying out the particulars can be necessary but in this instance the question was only "Who has the right to a fair trial?" It works as a stand-alone question and did not need to be related to victim status to get a proper answer. Of course, if someone asks for context I will do my best to give it, on the assumption it will help them provide more accurate responses. Fair enough.
I just didn't think it was necessary to delve into the victim topic again... If I had written a ton of repetitive info about victims at the beginning of my post, it would have completely altered the responses. Plus, it's always nice to keep things organized. I don't want to talk about the same thing in every thread, and no one wants to read it either.