Should We Be Using the Word “Victim” in Criminal Proceedings?

By Brett Thomas, BBT Law LLC

The jury trial of Kyle Rittenhouse began recently. Rittenhouse is the Illinois teenager who shot and killed two people and paralyzed another from the waist down last year during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The case was already a national story, but the judge made news when he instructed the prosecution not to use the word “victim” to describe those who died or were injured. The court further ruled that if the evidence showed that those who were killed or injured had previously engaged in arson, rioting, or looting, the defense could call them arsonists, rioters, or looters.

These rulings raise an interesting issue. Does using the word “victim” encroach on the defendant’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent? This question, of course, depends on the word is defined. “Victim” is generally defined under Indiana law as “a person who has suffered harm as a result of a crime.” (IC 35-31.5-2-348).  Does using this definition predispose a jury to believe a defendant is guilty of the crime of which they are charged?

Presumably, members of the legal community around the nation are curious to see if this argument will gain steam after being successful in such a high-profile case. If Indiana attorneys begin using this argument regularly, one wonders if the Indiana Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on this issue in the near future.

If you would like to submit content or write an article for the Criminal Justice Section, please email Kara Sikorski at ksikorski@indybar.org.

Subscribe to Criminal Justice Section news here!