Victim Confidentiality Laws Promote Safety and ... - the Missouri Bar

violation and a motion for redaction
or a motion to place under seal filed
with the court. Experience indicates
that there is still much room for
education and improvement in these
areas; victim confidentiality laws in
some jurisdictions represent uncharted
waters and in most jurisdictions are
still relatively new when set against
the historical backdrop of defendants’
rights.
Conclusion
Laws are available to help protect
the identity and location of victims
of sexual assault, domestic assault
and stalking without impeding or
diminishing long-standing defendants’
rights. Perfunctory adherence to
basic discovery rules while ignoring
confidentiality laws results in a
disservice to victims and to the
criminal justice system as a whole.
The integrity of our judicial system
depends on application of all rules
that govern the discovery process,
in consideration of both victims’
and defendants’ rights. Fear that the
introduction of victims’ rights would
compromise those of defendants is an
archaic notion dispelled by decades of
trial and error, though undoubtedly
there will continue to be challenges
as our understanding of the victim
experience expands.
The permanency of information
posted to the Internet either
legitimately or maliciously makes it
even more important to safeguard
confidential victim information while
maintaining compliance with the legal
and ethical requirements of disclosure
rules. There is no question that
many victims of crime do not come
forward due to fear of exposure. It is
reasonable and just to address these
concerns to the extent possible and
within the parameters of defendants’
rights, including those that are wellestablished
and those yet developing.
Extending equal consideration to
82 / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR
victims has made our criminal justice
system stronger, not weaker, and
we can look forward to continued
progress in addressing the victim
perspective with a well-reasoned,
balanced approach.
Endnotes
1 Kellie Wingate Campbell, a 1988 graduate
of the University of Missouri-Columbia
School of Law, currently serves as the Lafayette
County Prosecuting Attorney. Campbell is also
president of the Missouri Victim Assistance
Network (MOVA) and presented a workshop
on the subject of victims and confidentiality in
The Hague in May. Ms. Campbell would like
to thank Jason Lamb, executive director of the
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services and
former Audrain County Prosecuting Attorney,
for his valuable input in the preparation of this
article.
2 Emily Bazelon, Nameless Victims,
Slate (June 5, 2012, 3:34 PM) (discussing
recent, high-profile cases concerning victim
confidentiality rulings), http://www.slate.com/
articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/06/
jerry_sandusky _s_trial_the_witnesses_
shouldn_t_be_outed_against_their_will_.
html.
3 See, Amsterdam Child Sex Abuse Victims
Demand Damages, Radio Netherlands
Worldwide (April 2, 2012, 11:15 a.m.),
http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/
amsterdam-child-sex-abuse-victims-demanddamages.
See also, Ched Evans Rape Case:
Nine More Arrests Over Twitter Comments,
British Broadcasting Corporation (May
1, 2012, last updated 09:16 ET), http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-eastwales-17905437.
4 Commonwealth v. Sandusky, CP-
14-CR-0002421-2011 (Centre County,
Pennsylvania) (Memorandum and Order dated
June 4, 2012, 8:53:10 AM), regarding the
request for pseudonym, available at http://
centrecountypa.gov/index.aspxNIC=506.
See, Brad Segall & Ben Simmoneau, Judge
in Jerry Sandusky Case Denies Accusers’
Bid for Pseudonyms; Bans Tweeting, CBS
Philadelphia (June 4, 2012, 6:00 PM),
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/
judge-in-jerry-sandusky-case-denies-accusersbid-for-pseudonyms-bans-tweeting/.
5 Brad Segall & Ben Simmoneau, Judge
in Jerry Sandusky Case Denies Accusers’
Bid for Pseudonyms; Bans Tweeting, CBS
Philadelphia (June 4, 2012, 6:00 PM),
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/
judge-in-jerry-sandusky-case-denies-accusersbid-for-pseudonyms-bans-tweeting/
6 Commonwealth v. Sandusky, CP-
14-CR-0002421-2011 (Centre County,
Pennsylvania) (Memorandum and Order dated
June 4, 2012, 8:53:10 AM), regarding the
request for pseudonym, available at http://
centrecountypa.gov/index.aspxNIC=506.
7 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Brady v. Maryland
is cited frequently for its ruling that the state
cannot withhold exculpatory evidence from a
defendant where the evidence bears on guilt
or punishment. To do so is a violation of due
process.
8 See, U.S. Const. amend. VI. See, Newton
v. Kemna, 354 F.3d 776 (8th Cir. 2004), for
a discussion of the Confrontation Clause as
it impacts a defendant’s requests for access to
confidential records of witnesses, and Johnson
v. Norris, 537 F.3d 840, 846-47 (8th Cir.
2008), where the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
repeats the observation it made in Newton v.
Kemna that the Supreme Court continues to
refrain from weighing in on the matter.
9 One Internet dictionary includes in its
definition of the word “revictimization”:
“Describes the experience of a survivor being
victimized or traumatized after the original
trauma. Examples of revictimization include
psychological abuse that may occur in a
survivor’s interactions with authorities such
as the courts, law enforcement personnel,
or therapists…,” http://nicedefinition.
com/Definition/Word/revictimization/
revictimization.aspx. See generally, Fatima
Badreddine, Understanding Victims’ Rights,
Law Journal For Social Justice (Sept. 21,
2011), http://ljsj.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/
understanding-victims-rights/.
10 Section 566.226, RSMo Supp.
2012. Note that this statute refers to “the
court record” and not all records such as
those covered by Sunshine Law (or “open
records” law). Although the safety of victims
is appropriately mentioned in Missouri’s
Sunshine Law in § 610.100.3, paragraph 4
appears to contradict paragraph 3 to the extent
that it requires a law enforcement agency to
seek a court ruling to close a record in order
to protect a victim’s identity when the person
requesting the records fit within a certain
definition. This is problematic because many
agencies charged with responding to Sunshine
Law requests are either unaware of the steps
that must be taken to properly protect victim
information or lack the training or resources
to do so.
11 While the role of the court clerk under
§ 556.226 continues to congeal, Court
Operating Rule 5.11 unambiguously sets forth
the court clerk’s responsibility to withhold
distribution of unredacted copies of tapes of
recorded proceedings that contain protected
information.
12 Johnny Kampis, MO: Sealing Criminal
Records a Bad Idea, Press Association Says,
Missouri Watchdog.org (July 13, 2012),
http://watchdog.org/40216/mo-pressassociation-says-sealing-some-criminal-recordsa-bad-idea/;
and Jean Maneke, Judges Don’t
Like Defendant Secrecy, Missouri Press News
(Nov. 2008), available at http://www.mopress.
com/_lib/files/ManLaw811.pdf.