By Joseph Passantino
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — An emotional victim impact statement was read in open court Thursday at the Newport Harbor Justice Center, detailing the years of anxiety, fear and harassment the victim said she and her family endured because of the actions of the guilty party.
In a three-minute speech to Judge William S. Zidbeck, the victim spoke about the anxiety and fear that the accused caused to her and her family. She spoke specifically about the guilty party arriving at her house unannounced and harassing her. She asked Judge Zidbeck not to take her statement as seeking “revenge” for the harm caused to her, but as an earnest report of the ways the guilty party has impacted her life, which she hopes will be taken into consideration during sentencing.
From an outside perspective, it is easy to assume that a trial ends as soon as a verdict is returned by the jury. But a great deal must happen between an accused being found guilty and the guilty party serving a sentence. For example, Judge Zidbeck must determine the sentencing of the party, a process documented on the Judicial Branch of California’s website. According to the rules of the court, “Judges have legal guidelines, called sentencing guidelines, to help them decide on a sentence.”
This process is not closed off to either the defendant or the state. “Both sides have a right to a sentencing hearing,” where they can interpret the evidence and use it to “argue what sentence a judge should give.” One of the most important factors considered is the relevant opinions of the people who have been harmed by the guilty party. “Victims have the right to be present at a sentencing hearing and to give a victim impact statement,” which is free for the victim to construct as they wish, so long as it accurately recalls the way the victim has been affected by the crime.
Victim impact statements are forced to contend with two opposing ideals in the justice system: the right of the defendant to challenge any claims against them to ensure a fair and balanced adversarial system, and the right of the victim to remain confidential during the judicial process. Ultimately, these rights can come into tension with one another. As this article implies, the victim statement heard Thursday was delivered in an open courtroom where members of the public could attend. The protection of a victim’s privacy is just as much a constitutional right to be upheld as that of any defendant, especially in the modern era.
Recently, the federal government released the Epstein files, a collection of records related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. During the release of hundreds of thousands of files, “survivors’ identities appear unredacted,” according to an article from NBC. An apathy toward the statements and testimonies of survivors can have drastic, life-altering effects on those harmed by crimes and undermines one of the core principles of the American justice system.
In the modern era, it is important to remain informed about the rights to which people are entitled. A list of victims’ rights in California’s criminal justice system is available online through the courts. For example, if a person is a victim in an ongoing criminal legal process, they “have the right to ask for their information to stay private,” “to be involved in the criminal case if they” consent to the process, and to “[m]ake a statement or provide information during sentencing,” among other rights. This impact statement is free for the victim to construct as they wish, so long as it recalls the way the victim has been affected by the crime.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
