THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 12 | FEBRUARY 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. standing to enforce these rights independently, and there is little precedent supporting private causes of action for enforcement. Even the federal CVRA17 provides limited avenues for recourse, with most appellate remedies being discretionary rather than mandatory. What my experience taught me, both personally and professionally, is that legal rights without enforcement are symbolic at best and retraumatizing at worst. We would never tolerate this level of procedural disregard for a defendant. We should not tolerate it for a victim. CIVIL REMEDIES: THE ILLUSION OF LEGAL RECOURSE One of the greatest challenges in enforcing victims’ rights is the near-total absence of viable civil remedies. While Oklahoma’s constitution permits victims to assert their rights in trial or appellate court, there is no private cause of action expressly created for victims whose rights are ignored or violated.18 Unlike civil rights statutes – such as 42 U.S.C. §1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for constitutional violations – there is no analogous mechanism in Oklahoma or federal law that allows victims to recover damages or obtain injunctive relief when their statutory (or state constitutional) rights are denied. Victims who attempt to assert claims under §1983 face significant barriers: Courts have routinely held that victims’ rights laws do not create enforceable federal rights because those laws lack the “rights‑creating” language required by Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe,19 a threshold that victims’ rights provisions fail to meet. Prosecutorial immunity often shields district attorneys and their staff from liability, even when they fail to honor victims’ rights.20 Judicial immunity bars suits against judges who exclude or silence victims, even in contravention of statutory guarantees.21 The federal CVRA provides a mechanism to petition appellate courts for relief, but it offers no damages, no fee recovery and is often considered too burdensome or limited in scope to provide meaningful redress.22 In other states, victims can sometimes seek enforcement through mandamus or declaratory relief, but even these remedies are time-sensitive and procedurally complex. For most victims, the practical effect is this: When rights are denied, there is no accessible or effective pathway to hold the system accountable. This lack of remedy undermines the very purpose of codifying victims’ rights – rights that exist only on paper and are functionally immune from challenge are not true rights. They are policy preferences. And until victims can access the courts to enforce them meaningfully, the promise of justice remains unfulfilled. OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM Reform must address both the legal and practical dimensions of enforcement. Key recommendations include: Appointment of Victims’ Rights Counsel: In serious felony cases, victims should be assigned counsel to assert and protect their rights. Statutory Remedies for Violations: Victims need clearly defined remedies when rights are denied, such as exclusion of a victim from a hearing or failure to confer on plea bargains. Standing and Participation: Courts must clarify and enforce victims’ standing to file motions and seek relief. States should adopt standing rules similar to the federal CVRA. Judicial Training: Mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) on victims’ rights and trauma-informed practice should be required. State-Level Oversight: Oklahoma should establish an independent victims’ rights ombudsman with authority to investigate complaints and enforce compliance. Technology for Notifications: Create centralized electronic systems that notify victims of all proceedings, case updates and outcomes. Funding for Community Advocacy: Increase Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and state grant funds to support local nonprofits that serve and accompany victims. Comparative Policy Review: Other states, like Oregon, Arizona and Ohio, offer important lessons. Oregon provides state-funded legal representation to help victims assert their rights in criminal proceedings.23 Victims in Oregon can
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==