No, there is no requirement that a court assign a victim an attorney to protect their rights. Courts may appoint an attorney at the court’s expense to represent the victim.

Victims can contact organizations like the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center to request free legal assistance from a victims’ rights attorney. Victims can request assistance from the prosecutor to enforce their rights. Victims can also hire an attorney. Victims, either pro se or through counsel, can file motions in trial courts and can appeal a court’s decision in order to protect their rights.

Organizations like the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center offer free victims’ rights legal representation to crime victims. Victims are also able to hire their own attorney, though this may come at a significant expense. If you are a victim who needs an attorney, contact Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center at 614-848-8500 or info@ocvjc.org.

It depends. Marsy’s Law protections may be applied to civil matters in some circumstances, for example, when there is a pending criminal case along with the civil matter. For more information on this topic, contact Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center at 614-848-8500 or info@ocvjc.org.

It depends upon what the prosecutor and victim are in disagreement about. For example, if the prosecutor does not agree that the victim can be in the courtroom during the trial, the victim can exercise this right pro se or through counsel, regardless of whether the prosecutor agrees. This logic applies to all victims’ rights in Ohio’s constitution, statutes, and court rules. However, when it comes to decisions about whether to proceed with prosecution, prosecutors have control over the case. While prosecutors must confer with the victim, the prosecutor is not required to follow the requests of the victim. Prosecutors retain their discretion over the case. In cases where a prosecutor and a victim disagree, we suggest the prosecutor or victim’s advocate refer the victim to a victims’ rights attorney to help represent the victim’s interests.

No, Marsy’s Law provides the right to speak with the attorney for the government upon request. This is subject to reasonable limitations. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center encourages the use of victims’ advocates to help facilitate conversation between the victim and the prosecutor.

The Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center offers training on Marsy’s Law across the state, including trainings with law enforcement agencies.

Ohio Revised Code 2930.10 requires a court to provide separate waiting areas for victims and offenders if there are separate areas available. Ohio Revised Code 2930.10 also directs courts to make reasonable efforts to minimize contact between offenders and victims. Marsy’s Law also provides the right to reasonable protection from the offender.

While victims have a voice in the criminal case, the prosecutor still directs the prosecution and may legally compel the victim to assist. For instance, if a victim is subpoenaed to testify, the subpoena is a court order and failing to comply with the order may result in contempt of court.

Marsy’s Law provides the right to “proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case.” The Ohio Supreme Court suggests most felony cases conclude in a year and most misdemeanor cases in six months. In practice, victims can exercise their right to be heard to object to unreasonable continuances and delays either pro se or through counsel. The victim can also request that the prosecutor object to excessive continuances. A victim who wishes to object to unreasonable delays can contact the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center for assistance.

While it is not required, the prosecutor may file a motion with the court requesting an order preventing the disclosure of the victim’s address, place of employment, or other similar information. Ohio Rev. Code 2930.07. Marsy’s Law also provides the right to privacy and the right to “reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused.” These rights may include the redaction of identifying information at the discretion of the 4 prosecutors. Implementing legislation may require the protection of victim names and identifying information. Victims who feel their privacy or safety rights have been or may be violated may be heard by courts, either pro se or through counsel. Victims may also request that prosecutors protect victim privacy and safety on their behalf. A victim who wishes to protect their privacy can contact Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center for assistance.

In most cases, law enforcement is not required to redact the victim’s contact information from their report. However, in sexual assault cases, federal law may require law enforcement to redact the “intimate details” of the assault including the victim’s name and contact information. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (1998). Implementing legislation may require law enforcement to redact victim names and identifying information prior to the public release of this information.

The prosecutor is required to turn over any potentially exculpatory information in their possession. Victims should be aware that information the victim discloses to prosecutor-based victim advocates and prosecutors may be turned over to the defense.

In this situation, the officer is following a bond schedule set by the court. This particular situation may not constitute a “public proceeding” as provided in Marsy’s Law. Arraignment, however, is a public proceeding, and therefore, the victim has the right to be heard at arraignment.

Victims have the right to be heard on any issue that implicates their rights. Implementing legislation may provide guidance as to when and how a victim or victim’s representative will be heard in trial courts. A victim who anticipates being denied, or has been denied, their right to be heard can contact Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center for assistance as soon as possible.

The court said:

We hold that for a defendant to show that a victim’s presence would result in an unfair trial, she must present particularized evidence that the victim’s testimony will be so affected by the victim’s presence during the testimony of other witnesses that her right to a fair trial would be violated. General assertions that it is possible are insufficient. State v. Maley, 2013-Ohio-3452, ¶ 7.

Prosecutors can object to excessive continuances and delays in a case. Prosecutors can file a motion in support of a victim’s right to be present. Prosecutors can file motions to protect the victim’s private information. These are just a few examples of motions the prosecutor might file.

If requested, the prosecutor shall provide the victim with reasonable and timely notice of changing court dates and times. The court does not need to hold a hearing for every continuance. Marsy’s Law provides the victim the right to object to unreasonable delay and excessive continuances. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center suggests that the prosecutor objects to unreasonable delay when the case exceeds the Ohio Supreme Court guidelines for case completion unless exigent circumstances exist to make the delay necessary. The victim may request that the prosecutor object to unreasonable delays. The victim may also object to unreasonable delays pro se or through counsel. If the victim has counsel, implementing legislation may require the parties and courts to provide motions and notices of hearings and continuances to victim counsel in the same way the court provides notice to the parties.

No, it is in the prosecutor’s discretion whether or not to file a motion that the victim has requested. If the prosecutor disagrees with a motion the victim has requested, Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center encourages prosecutors and advocates to refer the victim to outside counsel to help.

Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center believes advocates can inform victims of their rights— including providing written information about victims’ rights, but cannot advise a victim to take a particular course of action. Advocates can find written information in the Attorney General’s Ohio Crime Victims’ Rights Handbook or case-specific information online at VictimsRightsToolkit.org. Advocates can also speak with Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center victims’ rights attorneys for additional written information. Language and terminology are crucial, and Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center would recommend that the advocate facilitate communication with the prosecutor or refer the victim to a victims’ rights attorney for further information.

Marsy’s Law applies to all cases that are currently in the criminal justice process regardless of whether they began before or after February 5, 2018. Marsy’s Law does not apply to cases that are already closed or hearings that took place prior to February 5, 2018.

Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center believes the prosecutor must provide disposition information to the victims in all misdemeanor, felony, and delinquency proceedings if the victim requests this information. Implementing legislation may refine the definition of “criminal offense or delinquent act,” which may eliminate some cases from notification requirements.

Law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and custodial agencies are required to make notifications to victims at different stages of the proceedings. Generally, courts provide notification only when there is no prosecutor assigned to the case. Some courts may wish to provide notice of proceedings to victims in the same manner as these notices are provided to parties.

Implementing legislation may require law enforcement to inform victims of how the arraignment process operates in their jurisdiction and provide the clerk of court’s contact information for the victim to learn of the arraignment. This will provide the requisite notification of arraignment, thereby eliminating the likelihood of a delay. Because arraignment often involves victim safety when bond decisions and protection order decisions are made, every effort should be made to notify the victim of arraignment and allow the victim to be present and heard. However, release decisions that implicate defendants’ constitutional rights should proceed even in victim absence.

In most cases, law enforcement is not required to redact the victim’s contact information from their report. However, in sexual assault cases, federal law may require law enforcement to redact the “intimate details” of the assault including the victim’s name and contact information. Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (1998). Implementing legislation may require law enforcement to redact victim names and identifying information prior to the public release of this information.

Most of the Marsy’s Law provisions were already codified prior to the passage of the amendment. Marsy’s Law elevated these provisions to the constitution. Advocates will be able to 8 provide services to more victims due to the expanded definition of “victim.” One major change is that restitution is now mandatory. Advocates should work with victims to collect the documentation needed to support a restitution award. Another significant change is that victims have the explicit ability to enforce their rights—either prose, through victims’ counsel like OCVJC attorneys, or, upon request, with the help of the prosecutor. Advocates should provide victims with information on how to enforce their rights and refer victims to Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center if there is any concern the victim’s rights are or maybe, violated.

The current best practice in many prosecutors’ offices around the state is to notify victims automatically, regardless of request. However, prosecutors are not required to notify victims if they waive this right.

Prosecutors should use the last known contact information and attempt to obtain the updated contact information. Implementing legislation will provide guidance on notification requirements.

A victim must be notified of the escape/recapture or release of an offender from a mental health facility.

Yes, the request to seal a conviction requires the court to set a hearing before granting the request. ORC 2953.32(B). The hearing would be considered a public proceeding involving the criminal offense under Marsy’s Law. Therefore, if the victim requested notification and provided current contact information, the victim must be notified of the hearing and have the opportunity to be present.

While not a provision of Marsy’s Law, ORC 2930.05 has required the investigating law enforcement agency to notify victims of arrests.

The Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center encourages all victims to sign up for VINE. VINE notifies victims when an offender is moved or released from jail. While many jails use VINE, some jails do not. Ultimately, the jail is responsible for notifying victims that the offender is going to be released.

Yes, if VINE is malfunctioning all jails, prisons, detention facilities, and other custodial agencies are required to notify victims of release or escape through alternative methods.

Under Marsy’s Law, a victim does not need to be notified of early probation termination if there is no hearing. A victim who has requested notice must be notified when a public proceeding is going to occur. However, under implementing legislation, victims may have the right to be informed of any modification of the period of probation or modification of other terms of probation.

Marsy’s Law does not designate a person or organization that is responsible for notifying the victim of a probation violation hearing. In most cases, the responsibility would fall to the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s designee.

Yes, the victim has the right to be heard at any public proceeding that involves a victims’ right, including probation violation hearings if the victim’s rights are implicated.

Yes, restitution orders can be a condition of community control, however, a court must specify this condition on the record or in a journal entry. If the offender fails to pay restitution, it may count as a violation of community control. In these cases, there would be a hearing to determine whether to revoke community control. An offender cannot be incarcerated for failure to pay restitution if the offender is financially unable to pay.

Marsy’s Law provides that victims are entitled to full and timely restitution. Courts are required to order restitution, not to exceed a victim’s actual losses. Victims must still prove their losses in compensable categories. Implementing legislation may include a prioritized order in which restitution is to be paid.

Inmates are subject to several deductions from their accounts, including child support, fines/fees, and restitution.

Marsy’s Law requires full and timely restitution based on actual losses. Implementing legislation may include, but is not limited to: requisite evidentiary standard, preservation of an offender’s assets, civil judgments, and prioritized order of restitution payments.

Restitution is part of sentencing. The Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center believes this is applicable to an offender sentenced on or after February 5, 2018.

In most situations, it will be necessary. The payment terms can be modified for periods of incarceration or similar circumstances that warrant a modification.

Currently, ORC 2929.18 and 2929.28 states that restitution must be made to the victim in open court, to the probation department, to the clerk of courts, or another agency as designated by the court. The actual collection of restitution may be the responsibility of the victim, though a prosecutor who is willing to help when asked by a victim or the court may also seek probation revocation or a contempt finding when defendants fail to pay. Implementing legislation may include a provision making a restitution order an automatic civil judgment, and therefore an automatic lien on the defendant’s real property. This will provide victims with another avenue to collect restitution.

Under current law, prisoners in the transitional control program and prisoners in private employment may have up to 25% of their net earnings allocated to make restitution payments to victims. See OAC 5120-12-05 and 5120-3-09.

The court must conduct a hearing if the amount of restitution is in dispute.

The proposed implementing legislation may bar restitution from being dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding.

At this time, law enforcement is not required to hand out a victims’ rights request/waiver form to victims. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center considers the use of these forms to be a best practice that facilitates compliance with Marsy’s Law and facilitates the ability of victims to timely exercise their rights. Additionally, the use of the form may be required by implementing legislation. Under ORC 2930.04, law enforcement is currently required to provide victims, in writing, information about their rights, protection that is available to the victim, including protective orders issued by a court, medical, counseling, housing, emergency, and any other services that are available to a victim, and information about the Crime Victim Compensation Fund. Law enforcement can fulfill this obligation by providing the Ohio Crime Victims’ Rights Handbook and pamphlets or information cards provided by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, or law enforcement may create their own handbooks, pamphlets, and/or information cards.

The Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center has a form available for use by law enforcement and prosecutors. Other organizations are working on creating a standardized waiver form as well. Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center will make those forms available on our website as soon as possible.

The request/waiver form is likely a public record under Ohio law and may be accessible through a public records request in some cases. Implementing legislation may require that, upon victim request, victim names and contact information must be redacted from the form prior to public release.

Marsy’s Law does not affect the Crime Victim Compensation Fund. The definition of “criminally injurious conduct” that make a victim eligible for this fund is not altered by the amendment. See ORC 2743.51(C).

Yes, under this definition a victim of theft is entitled to notifications upon request. In some circumstances, a witness can be a victim. Implementing legislation may provide guidance to law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts regarding identifying victims who are “directly and proximately” harmed.

The Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center believes that in certain circumstances a corporation or business may be considered a victim. For example, in a theft case, the local store may be a victim, but the parent corporation may not fall within the definition of victim due to the requirement of the harm being “direct and proximate.” Implementing legislation may provide additional guidance.

Anyone considered a victim under the new definition has the right to give a victim impact statement at sentencing. Courts may also allow non-victims to give impact statements under some circumstances. Even if a court will not allow non-victims to give an oral statement, many courts will allow non-victims to provide written statements

The language of the amendment includes victims of any criminal offense, which would include criminal traffic offenses in some jurisdictions. Implementing legislation may refine the definition of criminal offense or delinquent act to provide additional guidance.

All of the rights provided in Marsy’s Law are applicable in juvenile courts.

Restitution orders for juveniles terminate at age 21, as juvenile courts are divested of jurisdiction. However, under implementing legislation, restitution orders may become automatic civil judgments against juveniles, and this judgment would continue until satisfied.

The prosecutor in a juvenile case is required to make the same notifications as required of prosecutors in adult courts. If there is no prosecutor presently involved, the court must make those notifications.

A provision of Marsy’s Law states that it supersedes conflicting state laws. Victims have a constitutional right to “full and timely” restitution. Implementing legislation may refine the definition of criminal offense or delinquent act to provide additional guidance.

Marsy’s Law provides for “full and timely” restitution. If proven, restitution orders are mandatory, but payment may still depend on the offender’s ability to pay. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). Courts may modify payment terms as necessary. Implementing legislation may provide additional guidance on this issue.