"'Victim videos' grow — but still controversial, is Vesna Jaksic's article in today's National Law Journal.
Although prosecutors applaud the increasing use of courtroom videos and
multimedia presentations as a means to humanize victims and demonstrate
the impact of the crimes they are prosecuting, defense lawyers are
worried about the prejudicial effect of playing on jurors' emotions.
Called "victim impact evidence," these presentations are typically produced by the victim's family and shown in the sentencing phase of a capital trial.
The videos — some of which are as long as 20 minutes and feature a mix of soft music, photography and narration — recently caused a debate among the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who disagreed about whether they should revisit the issue of their admissibility.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the attempt to block the videos' use, observers expect prosecutors in more states to start using the tool more often.
In one case, Kelly v. California, No. S049973 (Calif.), jurors were shown a 20-minute video featuring a montage of still photographs and video of the life of Sara Weir, a 19-year-old who was raped and killed in 1993. Weir's mother narrated the video, which took viewers from the girl's infancy to her death and featured moments such as her daughter's dressing up for Halloween in a homemade costume, getting ready for her first horse show and attending her high school prom.
Called "victim impact evidence," these presentations are typically produced by the victim's family and shown in the sentencing phase of a capital trial.
The videos — some of which are as long as 20 minutes and feature a mix of soft music, photography and narration — recently caused a debate among the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who disagreed about whether they should revisit the issue of their admissibility.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the attempt to block the videos' use, observers expect prosecutors in more states to start using the tool more often.
In one case, Kelly v. California, No. S049973 (Calif.), jurors were shown a 20-minute video featuring a montage of still photographs and video of the life of Sara Weir, a 19-year-old who was raped and killed in 1993. Weir's mother narrated the video, which took viewers from the girl's infancy to her death and featured moments such as her daughter's dressing up for Halloween in a homemade costume, getting ready for her first horse show and attending her high school prom.
And:
The California Supreme Court upheld the use of the video during
sentencing of the defendant, Douglas Kelly, who received the death
penalty.
The same court also upheld the use of a 14-minute video montage in the penalty phase of Samuel Zamudio, who was convicted in 1997 for robbing and killing a couple and also was sentenced to death. The video contained 118 photographs of the couple, Elmer and Gladys Benson, including images of their graves.
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the two cases, which challenged the use of the videos, but not without disagreement. Kelly v. California, No. 07-11073; Zamudio v. California, No. 07-11425. Justice John Paul Stevens said the videos had no direct relation to the crime.
In his dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer acknowledged that the videos' emotional and artistic qualities could create a legal problem, and he wanted the court to hear the cases.
"I understand the difficulty of drawing a line between what is, and is not, constitutionally admissible in this area," Breyer wrote. "But examples can help elucidate constitutional guidelines."
The same court also upheld the use of a 14-minute video montage in the penalty phase of Samuel Zamudio, who was convicted in 1997 for robbing and killing a couple and also was sentenced to death. The video contained 118 photographs of the couple, Elmer and Gladys Benson, including images of their graves.
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the two cases, which challenged the use of the videos, but not without disagreement. Kelly v. California, No. 07-11073; Zamudio v. California, No. 07-11425. Justice John Paul Stevens said the videos had no direct relation to the crime.
In his dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer acknowledged that the videos' emotional and artistic qualities could create a legal problem, and he wanted the court to hear the cases.
"I understand the difficulty of drawing a line between what is, and is not, constitutionally admissible in this area," Breyer wrote. "But examples can help elucidate constitutional guidelines."
Earlier coverage is here.
Comments