Advocacy Call on Marsy’s Law

Advocacy Call on Marsy’s Law


Subscribe iTunes

Documents

Marsy's Law seeks to give crime victims legal standing in bail hearings, pleas, sentencing, and parole hearings. It also allows crime victims to refuse an interview or other discovery requests made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused. The Law has passed in several states including California, Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In North Dakota, issues with interpreting and implementing the law as it relates to the discovery process have been reported. Other states have experienced similar issues.

NACDL hosted a National Advocacy Call on Developing Legislation on Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. EST. The discussion focused on how state advocates can help stave off the aggressive proponents of this legislation. Speakers included: Barry Wilford, partner with the law firm Kura, Wilford & Schregardus Co. , L.P.A; Mark Friese, criminal defense lawyers from Bismarck, North Dakota; and Garrick Byers, a former public defender for 33 years in Contra Costa and Fresno Counties.

Learn more about NACDL's State Criminal Justice Network. Angelyn C. Frazer-Giles, Host. Doug Shaner, production supervisor.  Music I Will! Rise Above (Jared C. Balogh) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.

Marsy’s Law Resources 

Text: 

Marsy’s Law model constitutional amendment

Background: 

Listen: Attorney Mark Friese on Marsy’s Law for North Dakota 

Continue reading below

Coronavirus Resources

NACDL to Focus on Service and Support for Members, Clients, and Community Throughout Virus Emergency

Learn More

Talking Points: 

NACDL talking points
ACLU of Montana 

Articles: 

Despite overwhelming legal opposition, voters gave crime victims their own bill of rights 
Victims’ rights law unfairly limits parole hearings, judge rules (California) 
City, county attorneys working to comply with Marsy’s Law (Montana) 
Devil is in details of Marsy’s Law (Montana) 
An IR View: Marsy’s Law is not the answer (Montana) 
Public defender says Marsy’s Law complicates efforts to defend her client (North Dakota) 
Marsy’s Law cost estimated at $2M per year (North Dakota) 
Mark Friese: “Marsy’s Law” ballot measure is a bad idea (North Dakota) 
As victims’ rights law makes ballot, other states grapple with pitfalls (Oklahoma) 
The billionaire behind ‘Marsy’s Law’ effort (Oklahoma) 
Journal Time Editorial: A fair trial first, then victims’ rights (Wisconsin) 
Montana Supreme Court: Marsy’s Law Initiative was unconstitutional (Montana)

States with Marsy’s Law: 

California (2008) 
Illinois (2014) 
North Dakota (2016) 
South Dakota (2016) 
Ohio (2017) 
Oklahoma (2018) 
Nevada (2018) 
Georgia (2018) 
Florida (2018) 
North Carolina (2018)

Voters in Montana and Kentucky also approved Marsy's Law measures in their perspective states. However, the Supreme Courts in each state declared Marsy's Law to be unconstitutional. Read more: Montana; Kentucky.

Fiscal Impacts:  

Continue reading below

North Dakota  

Statement of estimated fiscal impact of constitution measure No. 3, Victims’ Rights Amendment - $4.0 million in additional expenditures for the 2017-19 biennium (prepared by the Office of Management and Budget)  

One-time funding of $815,000 is added for the statewide automated victim information and notification (SAVIN) program enhancement project. The enhancements will upgrade the SAVIN program so that it is able to provide the notification necessary to comply with Section 25 of Article I of the Constitution of North Dakota, also known as Marsy’s Law. Resources: 
Statement of Purpose of Amendment for House Bill No. 1003
65th Legislative Assembly State Budget Actions for the 2017-2019 Biennium: page 56 - $315,000 appropriation for the SAVIN program; page 57 - additional $500,000 for the SAVIN program enhancements.  

South Dakota  

$158,000 increase for software upgrades for the statewide automated victim information and notification system due to passage of Marsy’s Law. Resources: Fiscal note for SB 32, general appropriations act for FY 2017 – page 2.

North Carolina 

Estimated costs to the courts of $16.4 million in FY 2018-19 and $30.5 million annually in subsequent years for additional district attorney staff. Click here for full report on the fiscal impact.