DOJ-OGR-00010698.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document675 Filed 06/25/22 Page7of21 So too, one of the victim witnesses present at trial was not a minor under the law of the place where she was abused. Nonetheless, the Court allowed her to testify with a limiting instruction. Maxwell’s offense conduct was not limited to minor victims. Sarah and Elizabeth have the right to deliver an in—court statement at Maxwell’s sentencing. The CVRA guarantees all crime victims the right to be “reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving...sentencing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (a)(4). This is the right of any victim to give what is commonly referred to as a “victim impact statement.” See generally United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). Various courts have held that the CVRA’s right to be reasonably heard guarantees victims the right to make an in—court statement. As one court explained: “At a sentencing hearing, the other participants will speak directly to the judge. Read against this backdrop, the CVRA commands that a victim should be treated equally with the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor, rather than turned into a ‘faceless stranger.” /d. at 1348, quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825 (1991). The Ninth Circuit has reached an identical conclusion. See Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2006). These holdings are consistent with the intentions of the CVRA’s drafters. As Senator Kyl explained, “the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court.” 150 CONG. REC. S10, 911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl), quoted in Degenhardt, 405 FSupp.2d at 1346. Further, victim impact evidence is probative of the offense conduct because an “assessment of the harm caused by the defendant has long been an important factor in determining the appropriate punishment, and victim impact evidence is simply another method of informing the sentencing DOJ-OGR-00010698