Both victims and criminal justice magistrates have many misunderstandings about the right to intervene. Some victims mistakenly believe that the right to lend them gives them the right to veto a decision to make a good deal. At the same time, some prosecutors are concerned that mandatory consultation could undermine their discretion of the Crown. In fact, neither hypothesis applies. No state has extended or interpreted the right of victims to apply to sacrifice in order to be a victim`s right, to control the continuation of the case. Such laws give victims the opportunity to be heard only by giving them a voice, not a veto. The UCCCA expressly provides that the guarantees may be given to the defendant, either orally or in writing. 13 V.S.A. No 8005 (b).
When registering and accepting a nolo conviction or candidate under Rule 11, the law directs the court to confirm that the defendant has received the notification prescribed by section 8005, point a); that the defendant had the opportunity to discuss the notification with counsel, provided he was represented; and understands that there may be collateral consequences for a conviction. In addition, for the purposes of Rule 11, the Tribunal must notify in writing, in the context of a written plea or in any other form: (A) that the conviction may have collateral consequences; (B) the internet address of the forfeiture of laws relating to secondary consequences, which the Attorney General, in accordance with point 13 V.S.A. (C), may allow collateral consequences to be discharged; (D) contact information for government or non-profit organizations, groups or organizations, if any, and to provide assistance to individuals seeking relief from security consequences; and (E) this conviction of a crime in Vermont does not prohibit a person from voting in Vermont. Id. 8005 (b) (2). As the following two cases show, victims can exercise their right to be heard without jeopardy the Crown`s authority to negotiate a resolution to the case. These court judgments indicate that the discrepancies between the testimony concerning the victim`s impact on convictions and the agreements in a negotiated argument do not constitute a violation of the agreement between the state and the defendant. 13 V.S.A. No 8007-8014 initiate proceedings in which a defendant may apply for exemption or rejection of certain provisional sanctions, disqualifications or penalties resulting from a criminal conviction. However, the DCCCA (Title 13, Chapter 231) does not provide a basis for the non-declaration of a plea, conviction or judgment; a means of taking legal action in the event of monetary damage; a right to exempt or defend the application of an adverse effect based on non-compliance with the chapter; or the request for an exemption from a guarantee imposed by another court, unless the law of such a court provides for such an appeal. These cases suggest that victim impact statements may influence the court`s decision to accept or dismiss an appeal.
Similarly, consultation with the victim during the oral argument process allows prosecutors to consider the concerns of the victims before submitting a plea proposal to the court.