Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
Crime Victim Has No Standing to Contest Lowering of Charges
Judges Approve Post-Trial Plea Deal Under Which Felony Conviction of Deputy Sheriff Was Reduced to Misdemeanor; Defendant Threw Woman to the Ground, Pepper-Sprayed Her, Because She Made Video of Arrest of Third Party
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A crime victim has no standing to contest a judge’s lowering of a felony conviction for deprivating her of constitutional rights under color of law to a misdemeanor, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday.
It rejecting the contentions of a Black woman who video-recorded an arrest of her companion. Then-Los Angeles County sheriff’s Deputy Trevor James Kirk, according to the Sept. 4, 2024 indictment, tried to grab her camera and, failing to do so, violently threw her to the ground, pressed his knee against her throat—over her protests that she couldn’t breathe—and pepper-sprayed her twice in the face.
The indictment recites that Kirk “assaulted Victim J.H., including with a dangerous weapon, namely, OC or pepper spray, and caused bodily injury to Victim J.H., and thereby willfully deprived Victim J.H. of rights secured and protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, namely, the right to be free from the use of unreasonable and unnecessary force by a law enforcement officer.”
The victim, Jacy Houseton, and a companion, Damon Barnes, were encountered by deputies in a market parking lot. They matched the description of robbery suspects, and the companion was taken into custody.
A jury last Feb. 6 convicted Kirk of a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. §242. At that point, he faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
Post-Trial Agreement
The government and Kirk entered a post-trial plea agreement under which the defendant withdrew his guilty plea and admitted that he “used unnecessary force to detain J.H. while acting under color of law” and “acted willfully when using unnecessary force.” It was agreed that “if the Court accepts this Agreement” there would be “a one-year term of probation,” as well as “a fine as determined by the Court, but no greater than $5,500,” plus restitution.
District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California on May 27 granted the government’s motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) which provides, in part:
“The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.”
Wilson dismissed those allegations in the indictment that rendered the crime a felony, saying:
“Here, even assuming that ‘leave of court’ requirement in Rule 48 gives this Court limited discretion to deny a Rule 48 motion, no circumstances warrant denying the government’s motion.”
Ninth Circuit’s Decision
Houseton petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to block imposition of a misdemeanor sentence, relying upon the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Rejection of the petition came in an order signed by Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and Anthony D. Jolmstone.
They wrote:
“The CVRA codifies important ‘[r]ights of crime victims’ including ‘[t]he right to be reasonably heard’ in certain proceedings and ‘[t]he right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity....’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). (8). Here, however, Petitioner has not shown, and the record before us does not reflect. That the district court denied her any right enumerated in The CVRA….Petitioner’s counsel filed a victim impact statement That included objections To and legal arguments against The Government’s Rule 48(a) motion, and Petitioner acknowledges that the district court read the statement. Petitioner also addressed the district court at the May 19. 2025 hearing.”
The judges declared:
“Though Petitioner challenges the legal basis of the district court’s order granting the Rule 48(a) motion, the CVRA’s mandamus procedure does not permit victims to challenge—and does not empower a court of appeals to address—matters other than a district court’s denial of the rights enumerated in that statute.”
The case is In re: J.H., 25-3472.
Not reflected in the opinion is that on Monday, Wilson sentenced Kirk to four months in prison. No fine was imposed.
The following day, Kirk was ordered to “pay to the United States a special assessment of $25.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company