The Missouri Supreme Court is set to decide whether a new law bolstering the rights of sexual assault victims violates an accused defender’s constitutional rights.
Mary Fox v. the State of Missouri is asking the state’s highest court to declare Senate Bill 569 unconstitutional because it allegedly violates a criminal defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses.
“If we get to a spot where our state continues to beat up on crime and be supportive of victims, which is great, it limits the job of the defense attorney to go in and properly do our job and make sure that the alleged criminal defendant’s rights are protected,” said Timothy Intessimone, a criminal defense attorney based in Jasper. “It has a substantial ability to influence decisions made by defense attorneys and the rights of those accused of sexual allegations, which are terrible cases to represent anyway.”
Senate Bill No. 569, known as the sexual assault survivors’ bill of rights, was approved by the legislature last year.
“Anytime a new law gets passed and it deals with the rights of criminal defendants, we keep a pretty close eye on that to make sure that it's not going to prevent us from doing our job,” Intessimone told the St. Louis Record. “That's why it got challenged so quickly because there was immediate concern about what impact this has on those who are accused. It doesn't balance the rights of the victims with the rights of the accused very well.”
SB 569 is one-sided, according to Intessimone.
“It was written only thinking about the victim and not thinking about the impact that it would have on those accused with sex cases, in particular,” he said. “Any attorney that does these cases know the severity of a charge like that and even just having the charges brought. There's not really any other accusation as impactful as an accusation of a sexual offense.”
The state appealed the lower Cole County circuit court’s decision that SB 569 is unconstitutional because it violates the challengers’ constitutional right to free speech, the Missouri Constitution’s the single subject, clear title and separation of powers requirements, and a criminal defendants’ due process rights in any given case, according to media reports.
“With this case being so impactful and having the ability to have a substantial effect and with defendants bringing it against attorneys and attorneys bringing it against the state, it's definitely ripe,” Intessimone added. “I think that's probably a reason the Missouri Supreme Court accepted this case because without deciding this, we're all going to be left in a tough spot on that competing interest.”