Here & Now

Balancing Victims' Rights in Wisconsin

Frederica Freyberg:
In tonight’s closer look, a proposal that would give crime victims additional rights moves through the Wisconsin legislature on its way, supporters hope, to becoming an amendment to the state constitution. A joint resolution known as Marsy’s Law would add new victims’ rights to those already protected under law, including new rights that are controversial. In a few minutes, we will hear from an opponent of the law who believes it would interfere with rights of the accused because one measure in the resolution allows victims to, “refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused.” Still, supporters say the resolution would make rights of the victims and the accused equal under law. The proposal was in the midst of its second consideration but late this week, Assembly leadership decided to potentially delay sending the measure to voters until 2020, seeking more time for study. Ariel Ludlum had testified before lawmakers this month in favor of Marsy’s Law, hoping for it to go to voters this April. Ms. Ludlum joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Ariel Ludlum:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what is your reaction to the potential delay of this going to voters?

Ariel Ludlum:
So we do have hope that it will continue to go forward. However, if it is delayed, it’s just another year that victims are going to go without those rights that they truly do deserve.

Frederica Freyberg:
Now you testified, as we said, before legislators as a victim. What was your story, what happened to you?

Ariel Ludlum:
So about two years ago, I worked for a company in Sheboygan County, and I got paid pretty well, fairly well. I made about $18 an hour, and I was able to support my family and my little one that I had. I didn’t realize that kind of being friendly with people would open it up for a man to take advantage of that. He took advantage of that and I didn’t recognize it at the time but it was sexual abuse in the workplace. I did eventually confront him about it and say this isn’t okay, you can’t be doing this, you can’t do these things to me, say these things to me, and when I would do that, because he was a maintenance man, he was able to keep my machine down, which then in turn would cause me to take $5, $6 less in pay.

Frederica Freyberg:
And so as a victim of this, were you treated badly?

Ariel Ludlum:
Throughout the legal process after I quit, he was promoted, and I realize what happened to me wasn’t right. I needed to file a complaint about it, about everything that happened, and as the legal process went on, I hired an attorney. I acquired debt from it as the company continued to throw more money behind their attorney, and the company did admit that I was sexually abused. However, they claimed it was due to my naivety and my young age. And they also then threatened that if we could continue on through the court process in fighting for the justice I deserved, that defamation of character was imminent as they were going to pull things up from my past.

Frederica Freyberg:
Wow. So what about opponents, many of them defense lawyers, who say that Marsy’s Law would conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections of the accused, if you could refuse interviews with those lawyers?

Ariel Ludlum:
So Marsy’s Law, what it comes down to is, I can say no. I don’t have to give you everything right away. I don’t have to say, you know, here’s my whole past, please pull it apart. But they can, if they can prove that it is detrimental to the case if they don’t have that, then a judge can require that I meet with them or that I provide the evidence that’s needed. And it does state in the proposal that it is not intended to and may not be interpreted to supersede a defendant’s federal constitutional rights. Our goal isn’t to counter the defendant’s rights. It’s not to take them away. Our goal is simply to even the playing field and provide constitutional rights for the victim as well.

Frederica Freyberg:
We keep talking about Marsy’s Law. It originated in California. How did it start?

Ariel Ludlum:
So Marsy’s Law started when a woman named Marsy was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend. Marsy’s brother, who is a doctor and her mom went to visit her grave, and then went grocery shopping afterwards. And as they were checking out at the grocery store, her murderer was there. He was there, out, just wandering around grocery shopping too and they had no idea that he was out. They didn’t know anything was going on with the case. And that made the doctor realize, I don’t have — we don’t have these rights for — we don’t have these rights to know these things, and we do really deserve them.

Frederica Freyberg:
So were there specific oversights in your mind regarding your case that would have been fixed with this law?

Ariel Ludlum:
Absolutely. So I did not continue to push forward with the court process, solely because of the lack of privacy. They could have pulled things that had nothing to do with my case but used it, as they said, as a defamation of character. And that, for me, was enough to say, you know, I will lose out on my justice so that I don’t have to drag myself or my family through that.

Frederica Freyberg:
How angry did that make you?

Ariel Ludlum:
Very, very angry, and it still makes me angry to this day.

Frederica Freyberg:
Ariel Ludlum, thanks very much.

Ariel Ludlum:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
Among those opposed to Marsy’s Law, Matt Rothschild. He’s executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and he joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Matt Rothschild:
Thanks for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what’s your reaction to the fact that apparently this resolution is going to see a delay in a floor vote?

Matt Rothschild:
Well, I was really happy to see that the Assembly seems to be slowing this thing down. There’s no reason to railroad it through and it was happening super-fast. Not everybody had a chance to get noticed when the hearing was and not everyone got to testify who wanted to testify. And so Im really happy that it’s slowing down. Amending the state Constitution is a serious thing and it shouldn’t be railroaded through.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what’s your primary concern about the law as proposed in Wisconsin?

Matt Rothschild:
The fundamental problem with Marsy’s Law as an amendment to the state Constitution is that it runs head on into the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defends the right of the accused to have a fair trial and to get depositions and to face his or her accuser. Marsy’s Law, at least one provision in it, would prevent the accused from having those rights. If you’re a victim, you could say I don’t want to talk to this guy’s lawyer. Im a victim here. Leave me alone. While you can sympathize with the victim in the circumstance, it deprives anyone who’s accused of a crime of getting a decent fair trial.

Frederica Freyberg:
I understood though that a judge could compel this kind of information from the victim or their advocates?

Matt Rothschild:
Well thats what proponents say but the “could” is the problem. Would they, number one? And if it’s in the state Constitution, if Im a victim, Im going to say Ive got a constitutional right here, guaranteed by the state Constitution, I don’t need to talk to anybody. Leave me alone. And that’s not how our system should work. You should be able, if you’re accused, to face the person who’s accusing you. And your attorney should be able to get a deposition. You should be able to get a fair trial.

Frederica Freyberg:
Wisconsin already has some pretty strong laws for victims.

Matt Rothschild:
Yeah, this is another problem with Marsy’s Law. It’s not really necessary. There’s a whole statute. It’s called Chapter 950 that lays out, almost word for word, some of the same protections in Marsy’s Law. So why do we need it as an amendment to the state Constitution if we have these good protections in the statute? If that statute isn’t being enforced, if victims are not getting their rights enforced here in Wisconsin, it’s up to the judges. It’s up to the prosecutors. It’s up to the DAs to make sure that their rights are being enforced and that they’re being respected. Victims should be respected in this state but there are a lot of protections for that respect and for their process already on the statutes.

Frederica Freyberg:
If those protections were already there, what do you think the motivation is behind trying to move this through into a constitutional amendment in Wisconsin?

Matt Rothschild:
Well, at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, we always look at the money behind bills and laws and policies. There is one person in the United States, a billionaire in California, who’s been pushing this around the country. He’s spent millions of dollars in other states. He may be spending here in Wisconsin. We haven’t been able to track it down, but the proponents of this Marsy’s Law in Wisconsin, LLC has already spent $865,000 in lobbying. And that’s a chunk of change.

Frederica Freyberg:
And yet how difficult is it to almost really come out against victims?

Matt Rothschild:
Well, I understand the dilemma that an elected official is in here. No elected official wants to face a commercial next time he or she is running for office to say, wow, he or she opposed victims rights. What’s wrong with this person? But there were a lot of questions raised at the hearing that I attended on this by representatives on both sides. Wondering specifically about this question of the 6th Amendment right of the accused and also some other problems that people were raising about Marsy’s Law as it’s currently written. So slow things down. Let’s look at that. Let’s get more testimony, and let’s try to fix the problems in this.

Frederica Freyberg:
It does have some bipartisan support, though, in the Wisconsin legislature, and even Josh Kaul.

Matt Rothschild:
Yes, I saw that. I was disappointed, of course, but from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I understand, you know, the pressure on them to back the sheriffs who’ve back it too. But I think we need to look at what kind of country do we want and understand that people who are accused can lose their life and liberty if they’re not allowed to defend themselves. And that’s a really important tenant of our democracy in this country. Are we going to just let that go by the wayside? I should hope not.

Frederica Freyberg:
Matt Rothschild, thanks very much.

Matt Rothschild:
Thanks.