A state constitutional amendment on victims’ rights approved by voters in 2016 is not absolute, the South Dakota Supreme Court concluded this week.
The justices decided that South Dakota’s Marsy’s Law amendment does not trump a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Their decision came Thursday in the case of South Dakota vs. Waldner.
Even so, the justices shot down a lower court’s ruling that had granted two defendants access to an alleged sexual assault victim’s diaries. Marsy’s Law may not be absolute, the justices wrote, but it does grant victims the ability to appeal decisions that affect their privacy.
Several states have passed versions of Marsy’s Law, billed as a crime victim’s bill of rights and named after Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered by an ex-boyfriend in 1983.
Her brother, California billionaire and Broadcom co-founder Henry Nicholas, has financially backed multiple state-level efforts to institute the provisions since California voters backed a version of Marsy’s Law in 2008. Nicholas funded the ballot initiative in South Dakota, as well.
Opponents of the initiative at the time decried the wording of the South Dakota proposal. They worried South Dakota’s version lacked provisions in other states to define the limits of a victim’s right to privacy, and how that right could be balanced with a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Ohio, for example, specifies that its version of Marsy’s Law does not outweigh a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and speedy trial.
The law in South Dakota has been used since its passage to shield the names of police in officer-involved shootings from the public, and led the Sioux Falls Police Department to remove the addresses of criminal incidents from publicly available police logs.
Case speaks to limits on victim rights
The Waldner decision doesn’t address every issue of concern with Marsy’s Law, but it does clear up some of the questions created by the broad language of its South Dakota iteration.
In the Waldner decision, the South Dakota Supreme Court concluded that Marsy’s Law did afford the victim the right to appeal a decision granting the alleged perpetrators access to diary entries, because the decision affected the victim’s protected right to privacy.
The victim had argued that the protections afforded through Marsy’s Law were absolute. The justices concluded that they are not.
You can read the full article at South Dakota Searchlight.