Backers of a proposed ballot measure that would elevate the rights of crime victims to the constitutional level in North Dakota insisted Tuesday that it will not erode defendants’ rights.

But some defense attorneys warned that the idea, dubbed Marsy’s Law, has been rejected before and could have unintended consequences.

One key addition under the proposed amendment is that victims would have the right to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made on behalf of the defendant.

Bismarck defense attorney Justin Vinje, the immediate past president of the North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, is concerned that the language in the amendment which also broadens who may exercise the rights of a victim will result in less cooperation in police investigations and court proceedings. “The legal system is never going to make someone 100 percent happy,” said Vinje.

Kathleen Wrigley, chairperson for Marsy’s Law in ND says the new law, if enacted, wouldn’t have any effect on the outcome of any cases. “This is America, we all have the opportunity to be heard,” said Wrigley. “There are well intentioned people on both sides of this issue, but change is hard for some people. The federal prosecutors do this every day and their system is not plugged up at all. There will be changes, like everything else, it will settle into place.”

Defendants would be less likely to reach settlement agreements and more likely to pursue jury trials where they can question victims and witnesses in open court, thus increasing the costs to taxpayers, according to Vinje.

“The most important takeaways from this is that Marsy’s law hurts the people it’s supposed to help, that it hurts the criminal justice system and it hurts the taxpayers of North Dakota,” said Vinje.

“The right to be heard does not mean the right to be believed,” said Wrigley. “Judges will always have the discussion they have now. Marsy’s law for ND frees victims from harassment. Victims are clearly falling through the cracks. People should be protected all of the time. It is really not as big as a risk as people made it out to be.”

While defendants will still have their constitutional right to confront witnesses and their accuser in court, the courtroom isn’t always necessary.

“We can make a good educated guess of that outcome,” said Vinje, who thinks that the new law would lead to more jury trials. “The attorney’s job is to know what a person’s testimony will be in court, before they get to court. Marsy’s law frustrates this. The people who are considered victims would not have to cooperate with the defense with the case.”

The fair treatment standards for victims and witnesses in existing state law were passed by the 1987 Legislature at the request of the governor and attorney general.

Vinje is not the only one critical of the proposal. There has been concern from judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike about amending victims’ rights into the constitution.

“It is not just defense attorneys, prosecutors have come out against Marsy’s law. It is a solution in search of a problem. Nobody has tried to take this to the legislator to make these changes,” said Vinje.

The law, which requires victims to be notified of court proceedings, available counseling and treatment services, the status of the investigation and the alleged offender’s custody status.

Marsy’s Law, named after Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, a California college student who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. California and Illinois have different versions of the law in place, and backers are trying to get it on the ballot in several other states, including Minnesota and Montana. “This is an opportunity in light of all the terrible things in this country, for everyone to come together,” said Wrigley. “Right now, it’s in the hands of North Dakotans.”