Victim impact statement

A statement describing the harm a crime caused its victim, presented during sentencing or another legal proceeding. It may be delivered orally or submitted in writing.

Victim impact evidence: Information about the effects of an offense on its victims, considered in criminal proceedings. A victim impact statement is one form of evidence about the offense’s consequences.
Victim participation in criminal proceedings: The ways crime victims may take part in investigations, trials, and sentencing. Impact statements give victims a structured role at a consequential stage of a case.
Defendant allocution: A criminal defendant’s opportunity to address the court before sentencing. It gives the defendant, rather than the victim, a voice at sentencing.
Victim participation rights: Legal rights allowing crime victims to participate in specified stages of criminal proceedings. Their scope varies across jurisdictions, including who may speak and at what stage.
Victim allocution: A crime victim’s opportunity to address a court during criminal proceedings. Some courts allow victims to deliver their statements directly at sentencing.
Capital sentencing: The legal process of deciding whether a person convicted of a capital crime receives a death sentence. The Supreme Court has specifically addressed victim impact evidence in capital sentencing.
Victim testimony: A victim’s sworn evidence about facts relevant to a legal proceeding. Testimony addresses facts under evidentiary rules; an impact statement focuses on harm.
Victim impact statements in capital cases: The use of victim impact statements in proceedings where a death sentence is possible. Their role raises especially sharp questions about fairness and the constitutionality of sentencing.
Sentencing hearing: A court proceeding in which a judge determines a convicted defendant’s sentence. Statements are commonly presented at this stage, before the sentence is imposed.
Payne v. Tennessee: A 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing victim impact evidence in the prosecution’s capital sentencing case. The ruling established a major constitutional precedent for such evidence in capital cases.

Linked from 11 pages