Uh to be clear this is not what the ruling said at all? They very explicitly said the victim does not have the right to be heard nor does their attorney have the right to ask any questions. They reversed because (1) there was insufficient notice and (2) because they said the statute gives victims the right to be there in person. (They also seemed to be unhappy about the evidence not being put on the record but that wasn't really in the scope of the appeal so they just hinted at it.)