Thirty-three states have added a victims' rights amendment to their state constitutions. Similar proposals have been made to amend the United States Constitution, including S.J. Res. 3 and H.J. Res. 64 in this Congress. Proponents claim an amendment is necessary to balance the rights of victims with those afforded the accused in the criminal justice system, to make protection of victims' rights and remedies uniformly available, and to replace inadequate enforcement mechanisms. Opponents claim an amendment would flood the courts with litigation, would undermine the rights of the accused (perhaps discriminatorily), and would jeopardize effective prosecution. S.J.Res. 3 and H.J.Res. 64 , like many of the statutory and state constitutional provisions, focus on enduring the rights of victims to be notified of, to attend, and to be heard at judicial proceedings. Like several of those provisions, they leave to another day the definition of "victim" for purposes of the amendment. They do address, however, victim participation in bail proceedings, plea bargaining, trial, sentencing hearings among others -- each of which are already subject to a wide variety of legislative regulation. It is as yet unclear whether S.J.Res. 3 or H.J.Res. 64 will wipe the slate clean or simply supplement existing law and whether it will trump conflicting defendant constitutional rights or if the need to |