Jan M. Bennetts

Before I walked into the conference room to meet Tiffany[i] for the first time, I took a deep breath. Neither of us knew it at the time, but this would be the first of many meetings and telephone calls I would have with Tiffany spanning nearly 30 years. Her 20-year-old son, Travis, had been brutally murdered in a particularly tortuous and cruel way at the hands of three men. Those men ignored Travis’ desperate pleas for his life as they methodically swung him by his hands and feet, back and forth three times to gain momentum, before they hurled him off a cliff to his death. His murder came after they had beaten Travis, kidnapped him, stuffed him into the trunk of his own car and drove until they found the location they knew would kill him, the Mores Creek High Bridge at Lucky Peak.

This was my first murder case and before I met with Travis’ family, I thought: What could I possibly say to Tiffany, Travis’ brother, Dustin, and his other family members? Fortunately, I had Susan Ledford at my side. Susan was the victim-witness coordinator assigned to the case. She would be the family’s guide throughout the case, ensuring they were afforded their constitutional and statutory rights. More than that, Susan was, and has been, their lifeline for what was yet to come.

A Brief History of Idaho’s Victims’ Rights

At the time of Travis’ murder in November 1995, Idaho’s victims’ rights had been part of Idaho’s Constitution[ii] for a little over a year, following the national victims’ rights movement in the 1970’s.[iii] Thirteen years earlier, in 1982, the Idaho Legislature created the Idaho Council on Domestic Violence and Victim Assistance (“ICDVVA”),[iv] explaining at the time that “[t]he council shall be the advisory body for programs and services affecting victims of domestic violence and other crimes in Idaho.”[v] In its policy statement, the legislature declared:

…that domestic violence is an issue of growing concern. Research findings show that domestic violence constitutes a significant percentage of homicides, aggravated assaults, and assaults and batteries in the United States. Domestic violence is a disruptive influence on personal and community life and is often interrelated with a number of other family problems and stresses. Refuge for victims of domestic violence is essential to provide protection to victims from further abuse and physical harm. Refuge provides temporary safety and resources to victims who may not have access to such things if they remain in abusive situations.[vi]

In 1985, the Idaho Legislature codified both the right of victims to compensation for economic losses resulting from a defendant’s crime[vii] and several enumerated victims’ rights during investigation, prosecution and disposition of the crime.[viii]  On February 1, 1985, the Executive Director of the ICDVAA at that time, Dawn S. Statham, testified before the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee in support of enacting a victims’ rights statute.[ix] Ms. Statham provided information from President Ronald Reagan’s taskforce on victims of crime to provide the committee members information about what victims experience as they navigate the criminal justice system.[x] Statham states “We must know what it is to have our lives wrenched and broken, to realize that we will never really be the same.”[xi]

In October 1985, then Ada County Prosecuting Attorney, Greg H. Bower, hired a victim-witness coordinator to provide services and resources to victims of crime. This position was the first of its kind in Idaho.[xii] Today, my office employs ten victim-witness coordinators. This includes one coordinator who is the dog handler for our certified assistance dog, Yuko.[xiii] Yuko provides comfort to vulnerable crime victims both in and out of the courtroom.

In 1994, the Idaho Legislature began the process of amending Idaho’s Constitution to include victims’ rights with the introduction of House Joint Resolution 16.[xiv] In its statement of purpose, the legislature stated:

[t]hroughout American history, our fundamental rights have been recognized and guaranteed in the Constitution. Yet currently, criminal defendants have 15 specific constitutional rights and victims have none. Idaho citizens want and deserve the opportunity to vote on the amendment which provides 10 specific rights guaranteeing victims access and participation in the criminal justice system. Approval of this resolution will be the first step to balance the scales of justice.[xv]

House Joint Resolution 16 was adopted by the House on February 21, 1994, and by the Senate on March 9, 1994.[xvi] On November 8, 1994, Idaho voters passed the crime victims’ rights constitutional amendment with 79.3% approval.[xvii] Between 1982 and 1993, fourteen states had passed a victims’ rights constitutional amendment.[xviii] In 1994, Idaho was one of six states to include victims’ rights in their constitutions.[xix] Fourteen states still do not have victims’ rights in their constitutions.[xx]

Victims’ rights give victims a voice in the criminal justice system. Although victims cannot override the decisions made, victims are entitled to notice and the opportunity to be heard throughout the process. Crime victims have the right to “…prior notification of trial court, appellate, probation and parole proceedings and, upon request, to information about the sentence, incarceration, placing on probation or release of the defendant.”[xxi] Victims have the right to be “[h]eard upon request, at all criminal justice proceedings considering a plea of guilty, sentencing, incarceration, placing on probation or release of the defendant unless manifest injustice would result.”[xxii]

Victims are also entitled to be “[c]onsulted by the presentence investigator during the preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant’s criminal conduct had upon the victim….”[xxiii] In addition, victims are entitled to reimbursement for their economic loss and prosecutors seek restitution on behalf of crime victims.[xxiv] If a court determines restitution is appropriate, “…it shall order a defendant found guilty of any crime which results in an economic loss to the victim to make restitution to the victim.”[xxv]

The enumerated victims’ rights “…shall apply equally to the immediate families of homicide victims or immediate families of victims of such youthful age or incapacity as precludes them from exercising these rights personally.”[xxvi] In an historic case in 1998, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an alternative writ of mandate, requiring a district judge to refrain from excluding a murder victim’s brother from any phase of the jury trial.[xxvii]

The Process and Its Impact on Victims

Approximately one year after Travis’ murder, the first co-defendant was tried and convicted of first-degree murder. The other two co-defendants pled guilty. Tiffany was, and still is, entitled to exercise her rights as a victim because she is an immediate family member of a murder victim.[xxviii] She exercised her rights as a victim at every stage of this case. She had the right “[t]o be present at all criminal justice proceedings”[xxix] and she exercised that right by attending pretrial hearings, the jury trial, and the sentencing hearings. Tiffany delivered victim impact statements at each of the defendants’ sentencing hearings pursuant to her right as a victim.[xxx]

Tiffany has expressed throughout this case that one or more of the defendants could have saved Travis’ life at multiple decision points throughout the hours’ long night of his murder. The defendant who was holding Travis by his hands as they were swinging him over the cliff literally held Travis’ life in his hands and he still made the choice to end Travis’ life rather than save his life. The image haunts Tiffany to this day.

Murder leaves a path of destruction in its wake for the families and friends of the victims. Tiffany’s experience is no exception. The impact of Travis’ murder on her life was devastating. The trajectory of her life was forever changed in the matter of seconds it took Travis to fall to his death. Tiffany’s experience and pain did not end after the defendants were sentenced. In the intervening years, she has grieved the loss of a loving son, kind soul, and talented musician. But she has also mourned what would never be for Travis – a career, a wedding, children, grandchildren, and the full life Travis most certainly had ahead of him.

In the years since I first met Tiffany, I have spent countless hours ushering untold numbers of crime victims through the criminal justice system. Not only have those victims lost loved ones to murder or manslaughter, but they are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, robbery, aggravated driving under the influence and more. Although their journeys may be different, there are striking similarities in the impact crime has had on their lives. For victims who have suffered physical harm, some never fully recover and even if they heal physically, the mental scars remain.

The Myth of “Closure”

There is a common belief that a particular outcome in a criminal case or the passage of time will provide a measure of “closure” for a victim or the victim’s family. There is rarely, if ever, anything resembling closure. In part, because in cases like Travis’, there are appellate and post-conviction proceedings that re-open painful, haunting memories. Tiffany has had to relive the nightmare of Travis’ murder repeatedly during the trial and post-trial process. Susan and I have had to contact her several times in recent years as she prepared to attend and speak at multiple parole hearings. Each hearing was more painful for her than the one before.