Marsy’s Law Launches New TV Ad Featuring Kelsey Grammer

Marsy’s Law Launches New TV Ad Featuring Kelsey Grammer

(Pierre, SD)—Today Marsy’s Law for South Dakota (Amendment S) launched a new television ad featuring award winning actor Kelsey Grammer supporting Amendment S.  Grammer is a crime victim whose father was shot and killed in his home at the age of thirty-eight.  Six years later, Grammer’s sister was brutally raped and murdered when she was eighteen. 

When his father’s killer was released from prison, the family was never notified.  They found out through the National Inquirer.  The killer of Grammer’s sister, Karen, remains in prison and Grammer has fought his efforts for parole.

Unfortunately, families in South Dakota have similar stories where criminals have been released or given parole hearings without notification being given to the families of the victim.  As a result, families have been re-victimized.

Grammer is known for his two-decade portrayal of psychiatrist Dr. Frasier Crane on the NBC sitcoms Cheers and Frasier. He has won five Primetime Emmy Awards, three Golden Globe Awards, and one Tony Award.

View ad here:

Marsy’s Law for South Dakota is a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights that is named after Marsalee “Marsy” Ann Nicholas. Marsy was a beautiful, vibrant college student who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Only a week after Marsy was murdered, her mother Marcella and her brother Nick walked into a grocery store after visiting Marsy’s grave and were confronted by the accused murderer. They had no idea that he had been released on bail.

For more information, visit


14 Replies to “Marsy’s Law Launches New TV Ad Featuring Kelsey Grammer”

  1. South Dakotan Voting "NO" on Amendment S

    It appears South Dakota continues to be inundated with millions of dollars worth of advertisements from out-of-state financiers trying to change “our” state’s constitution. Interestingly, the information has been scant on how South Dakota’s current laws do not protect South Dakota crime victims. Prosecutors across the state work tirelessly to protect victims. If our laws are truly as deficient as the proponents of S would like to have you believe then let us vet the purported deficiencies through the legislative process not by amending our state’s constitution. I urge a strong “NO” vote on Amendment S. Keep the out of state money out of South Dakota and let the people of South Dakota not celebrities or people from California decide what is best for South Dakota victims.

    1. Rape Victim

      Sounds like someone from the establishment defending our broken justice system. Remember the Joaquin Ramos commutation by Rounds when the family never received notification about the parole hearings…or the Governor’s commutation? They learned about it in the press- after the fact. Remember the Fall River Sheriff convicted of rape- the victim wasn’t notified when he was released either. I was raped and was never notified when my rapist was released from bail. I found out when I ran into him at a store. The establishment doesn’t like to admit it, but South Dakota has a lot of problems. I am voting for S.

      1. Rape Victim

        I forgot the word “deputy” before Sheriff. His name was Buckley McColl and he got sentenced to 5 years in prison.

  2. Anonymous

    While sympathetic to all victims…I am a no on this measure…like many of these measures it appears to go too far…every rape or serious felony victim should be notified…aren’t they supposed to be required already under statute…this Amendment to our state constitution adds a broad definition of “victim and covers all the way down to petty thefts…thereby tying up resources for the more dangerous crimes to be prosecuted.

    I find it telling that the state bar, SA association and the defense bar are all against it and they don’t agree on anything

  3. Anon

    Commercials like this, and comments from a poster named Rape Victim, make it hard to speak against the law without seeming like a bad person. But bad, overbroad laws do not suddenly become good because they were passed in the name of people who have unquestionably suffered. No on S.

    1. South Dakotan Voting "NO" on Amendment S

      According to the recent report filed, it appears that the consultant has been paid approximately $130,000.

      1. Anon

        Shouldn’t assume it goes to one person or firm though.. that is a line item typically comprised of funds distributed to numerous consultants and all staff.

  4. anon1

    If this issue wasn’t a constitutional amendment, I’d probably vote yes. But, it’s a very long bill that will be put directly into our state’s constitution if it passes. Anything with that many tentacles is bound to have some unintended consequences… which is one of the main things our legislature does… tweak laws that need fixing.

    Once this long issue goes into our constitution, there’s nothing you, or I, or the legislature can do about it… flaws or not, it’s the law of the land.

    I sure wish I could vote for it, but, because of what I’ve stated above, I’m a no.

    1. Anonymous

      I agree…I wish Amendments had a higher standard also…it should take more than a majority to change the constitution which is the same standard as the IMs.

  5. Mark N.

    I’m voting No on S. The problems with notification can be fixed with the new SAVIN system and changes in statute if needed. We don’t need to write a terrible definition of victim into our constitution. Please vote No.

  6. Anthony Renli

    The rule of thumb I’ve always used that I got from a lunchen that Mike Rounds spoke at – when in doubt on a Constitutional Amendment, vote No.
    A bad law can be fixed by the legislature. A bad Constitutional Amendment cannot be fixed that way.
    If there is doubt, vote no.