HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016527.jpg
3.26 MB
Extraction Summary
15
People
3
Organizations
15
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / law review article
File Size:
3.26 MB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a law review article (103 Minn. L. Rev.) discussing the oversight of declination decisions in state justice systems compared to the federal system. It highlights the lack of administrative and judicial review for state prosecutors' charging decisions and details the limited exceptions and historical context through extensive footnotes citing case law.
People (15)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Erikson | ||
| Gibbs | ||
| Meister | ||
| Biemel | ||
| Wild | ||
| Otis | ||
| Harrington | ||
| Calderone | ||
| Best | ||
| Harton | ||
| Moose | ||
| Cantrell | ||
| John D. Bessler | ||
| Rafferty | ||
| DAVID SCHOEN |
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Justice | ||
| Minnesota Law Review | ||
| House Oversight Committee |
Locations (15)
Key Quotes (3)
"State justice systems do not go as far as the federal system does, much less provide the kind of oversight or victim recourse that European systems now offer."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016527.jpg
Quote #1
"Administrative review of state prosecutors' charging decisions is simply not feasible without major reorganization of state justice systems."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016527.jpg
Quote #2
"In accord with common law tradition, state and federal courts have never meaningfully reviewed public prosecutors' noncharging decisions."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016527.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document