U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 223— WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3510

Rights of victims to attend and observe trial

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Non-Capital Cases.—Notwithstanding any statute, rule, or other provision of law, a United States district court shall not order any victim of an offense excluded from the trial of a defendant accused of that offense because such victim may, during the sentencing hearing, make a statement or present any information in relation to the sentence.(b)Capital Cases.—Notwithstanding any statute, rule, or other provision of law, a United States district court shall not order any victim of an offense excluded from the trial of a defendant accused of that offense because such victim may, during the sentencing hearing, testify as to the effect of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family or as to any other factor for which notice is required under section 3593(a).(c)Definition.—As used in this section, the term “victim” includes all persons defined as victims in section 503(e)(2) of the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990.(Added Pub. L. 105–6, § 2(a), Mar. 19, 1997, 111 Stat. 12.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 503(e)(2) of the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, referred to in subsec. (c), is classified to section 20141(e)(2) of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 105–6, § 2(d), Mar. 19, 1997, 111 Stat. 13, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section and amending section 3593 of this title] shall apply in cases pending on the date of the enactment of this Act [Mar. 19, 1997].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1997–2016 · leading case: United States v. Visinaiz, 428 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Visinaiz, 428 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Jenkins to remain in the courtroom, following his testimony, as a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3510 . For purposes of that statute, “[n]otwithstanding any statute, rule, or other provision of law, a United States district court shall not order any victim of *1315 an offense excluded…”
United States v. Daryl Lawrence, 735 F.3d 385 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “4 Lawrence contends the question is actually controlled by the statute more specifically applicable to capital cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3510 , which defines the right not to be excluded from trial by referring to “victim” in the singular.”
United States v. Johnson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (N.D. Iowa 2005). · cites it 2× “In its original motion, the government contended that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3510 (b), “victim witnesses” cannot be excluded from any of the proceedings in this capital case.”
United States v. Gary Lee Sampson, 486 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3510 (b); 42 U.S.C. § 10607 (e)(2)(B).”
United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.J. 2009). · cites it 2× “, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3510 , 3525, 3555, 3556, 3663, 3663A, & 3664.”
United States v. William Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “, 18 U.S.C. § 3510 (b) (right of victim to attend trial even if she may appear as witness at subsequent sentencing phase in a death penalty case); 28 U.”
United States v. Spann, 51 M.J. 89 (C.A.A.F. 1999). · cites it 3× “” 18 USC § 3510 (a). The legislation contained a similar provision governing capital cases, § 3510(b), and provided further that the new legislation would only “apply in cases pending' on the date of the enactment” — March 19, 1997.”
United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “This right effectively trumps Federal Rule of Evidence 615, and in doing so broadens a 1997 statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3510 , that was enacted in response to the trial court’s exclusion of victims from the proceedings in the Oklahoma City bombing case on the ground that they might…”
United States v. Serawop, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (D. Utah 2004). “105-6 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3510 ). 50 . 42 U.S.C. § 10606 (c).”
United States v. Spann, 48 M.J. 586 (N.M.C.C.A. 1998). “Later, after the trial of this case, the Congress went further and enacted "The Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997,” the pertinent section of which is now found at 18 U.S.C. § 3510 . That section effectively prevents a United States district court judge from excluding the…”
United States v. Langston, 50 M.J. 514 (A.C.C.A. 1999). “Additionally, The Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, 18 U.S.C. § 3510 , effectively prevents a United States district court from excluding the victim of a crime from the trial of a defendant who may later testify or present information in relation to the sentence.”
United States v. Sampson (1st Cir. 2007). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3510 (b); 42 U.S.C. § 10607 (e)(2)(B).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.