Jon Kyl: “I agree it is perplexing how one could conclude a defendant's rights would be trampled on in any way by our proposal. It…”

“I agree it is perplexing how one could conclude a defendant's rights would be trampled on in any way by our proposal. It does not do that. The article in the Los Angeles Times, quoting Professors Tribe and Cassell, makes the point that ``a victims' rights amendment must, of course, be drafted so the rights of victims will not furnish excuses for roughshod treatment of the accused. The Senate Resolution is such a carefully crafted measure, adding victims' rights that can exist side by side with defendants'.'' Precisely the point. There is only one conceivable circumstance I know of in which there could actually be an assertion of two constitutional rights, one by the defendant and one by the victim, which could theoretically come in conflict, and that is the right to be present at the trial. Courts deal with that today. They would balance the interests tomorrow. We have the same thing existing with respect to the press. We have the right of free press. Say victims want to attend the trial. Sometimes, as we know, judges don't permit that, but it is in the Constitution. That is right. But the defendant has a right to a fair trial as well. The courts will balance those two interests and generally come to an accommodation that enforces both rights.”