In The Courts

In Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 05-73467 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that it was error for the district court to refuse to allow the victims of a fraudulent scheme to speak at the perpetrator's sentencing hearing. Writing for the majority in the first circuit court case to interpret the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. ' 3771, Judge Kozinski noted that although historically victims were treated like Victorian children — to be seen but not heard — the CVRA makes victims “independent participants in the criminal justice process.” The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the district court to hear petitioner's motion to reopen the hearing so that he may be heard.

The Defendant in the underlying case was the son in a father-and-son team that perpetrated a large-scale wire fraud involving purported investments in foreign currency. Scores of victims were identified in the case, with combined losses totaling nearly $100 million. More than 60 victims submitted victim-impact statements, and several spoke at the father's sentencing. At the son's sentencing, the district court denied the victims the opportunity to speak, explaining that it had heard from the victims at the father's hearing and that it believed there was nothing more of value to be added. The victims objected, asserting that there had been additional impacts on them in the 90 days since the father's hearing.