Wanta B. Heard, the victim, filed a notification request form after indictment of the defendant for the crime of rape. The State and defendant worked out a plea agreement to plead guilty to second-degree assault with a one-year sentence. Heard requested to speak with the court regarding the plea. The court denied Heard's request without hearing from her. However, the court stayed further proceedings to allow Heard to seek judicial review in the appellate courts. Wanta B. Heard was the victim of a 1st degree rape with a handgun, which resulted in serious physical injuries and mental trauma. The State and Defendant worked out a plea agreement of second-degree assault with a one-year sentence. Heard recommended that the court not accept the plea.
[...] amend (victim can attend all crucial stages of the proceedings, to the extent attendance does not interfere with constitutional rights of defendants); Alaska Const. art. I (victim can attend all proceedings the defendant has a right to attend); Ariz. Const. Art. II 2.1 (victim can attend all proceedings in which defendant, prosecutor, and general public have a right to attend); Colo. Const. art II, 16a (victim can attend critical procedures); Fla. Const. art. 16(b) (victim can attend critical proceeding, to extent attendance does not interfere with defendants' rights); Idaho Const. [...]
[...] Article 7 states, are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Article 8 states, “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” The pertinent part of the UNDBJP to the case at hand is part 4 and part 6. Part 4 states, “Victims are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they suffered.” The escape clause for possibly saying that victims in the U.S. [...]
[...] DENYING THE VICTIM THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD DURING PLEA PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DECLARATION OF BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME. This particular UN Declaration is an offspring of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)(adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948), one of the seminal documents of the UN and General Assembly.[xliii] The U.S. is a general member of the UN and a party to the General Assembly. [...]
[...] 1980)(“Where there is no plenary trial because the defendant pleads guilty, the case law clearly indicates that jeopardy attaches upon the court's acceptance of the guilty plea, unless the plea is made in a sham proceeding or the court lacks jurisdiction.”) [xxxvii] Beloof at 275. [xxxviii] Miranda v. Arizona U.S.436 (1966). [xxxix] Green v. U.S U.S (1961). State v. Korsen P.3d 130 (Idaho 2005). [xli] Id. [xlii] Id at 134. [xliii] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. [xliv] (adopted by General Assembly on November 29, 1985). [xlv] Published by the United Nations Department of [...]
[...] II be heard at any proceeding when any post-conviction release from confinement is being considered”); Mo.Const. art. right to be informed of and heard at probation revocation hearings, and parole hearings, unless in the determination of the court the interests of justice require otherwise”); Nev. Const. art. at all proceedings for the release of a convicted person after S.C. Const. art. 24(A)(10)(“have the right to be informed of any proceeding when any post-conviction action is being considered, and be present at any post-conviction hearing involving a post-conviction release decision”). [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee