HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
2.21 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal memorandum / law review excerpt
File Size:
2.21 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen, which cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues for a broad interpretation of a victim's right to be heard in court proceedings, citing legislative history from Senators Feinstein and Kyl. It proposes a new rule (Rule 60(b)) regarding the enforcement of victims' rights and preserving claimed error.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Schoen | Attorney/Submitter |
Name appears at the bottom of the document, indicating he likely submitted this legal argument or memo. Schoen was a ...
|
| Dianne Feinstein | U.S. Senator |
Cited in the text regarding the legislative history of the CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act).
|
| Jon Kyl | U.S. Senator |
Cited in the text regarding the legislative history of the CVRA and enforcement provisions.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Utah Law Review |
Source of the cited text (2007 Utah L. Rev. 861).
|
|
| U.S. Congress |
Implied via Congressional Record citations.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2004-04-22
Congressional Record entry for statements by Senator Feinstein regarding the CVRA.
US Congress
Senator Feinstein
2004-10-09
Congressional Record entry for statements by Senator Kyl regarding the CVRA.
US Congress
Senator Kyl
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in the Law Review title.
|
|
|
Referenced in case citation United States v. Tobin.
|
Relationships (1)
Implicit context: David Schoen (named in document) represented Epstein; this document discusses Victim Rights (CVRA), a key issue in the Epstein litigation.
Key Quotes (4)
"The CVRA envisions victims being heard in second sense - in arguing in favor of their rights."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
Quote #1
"Senator Feinstein explained that the basic goal of the CVRA was to give victims the right to 'participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant . . .'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
Quote #2
"[The CVRA's enforcement provisions] allow[] a crime victim to enter the criminal trial court... and assert the rights provided by this bill."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
Quote #3
"My proposed rule achieves that goal."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,943 characters)
Page 68 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *956
Part of the confusion here may stem from two different ways in which victims can be heard. The first way is when the victim's statement is effectively built into the proceeding at issue. At sentencing hearings, for example, the CVRA envisions a specific point in the process where the victim will have a chance to make a statement - the victim's allocution. 531 This is what the CVRA means when it refers to the victim's "right to be heard" at sentencing proceedings (along with plea and bail proceedings). But the listing of victims' rights to be heard at those three specific hearings could not possibly have meant that victims would have to remain silent at all other hearings.
[*957] The CVRA envisions victims being heard in second sense - in arguing in favor of their rights. The CVRA directly gives victims and their representatives the right to "assert" their rights. 532 These rights can be asserted by a victim's representative (that is, an attorney). 533 The CVRA also allows victims to file motions asserting their rights which must be taken up "forthwith." 534 These are all ways in which victims can properly be heard. 535
The CVRA's legislative history makes it unmistakably clear that victims would be heard at other points in the process. Senator Feinstein explained that the basic goal of the CVRA was to give victims the right to "participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant . . ." 536 Senator Kyl also noted that the act's enforcement provisions would give victims rights to be heard throughout the process:
[The CVRA's enforcement provisions] allow[] a crime victim to enter the criminal trial court during proceedings involving the crime against the victim, [to stand with other counsel in the well of the court,] and assert the rights provided by this bill. This provision ensures that crime victims have standing to be heard in trial courts so that they are heard at the very moment when their rights are at stake and this, in turn, forces the criminal justice system to be responsive to a victims' rights in a timely way. 537
As one illustration of how this right to be heard operates, consider the victim's right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. 538 Presumably, this right encompasses a victim's opportunity to be heard before a case is delayed. As Senator Kyl stated: "This provision should be interpreted so that any decision to schedule, reschedule, or continue criminal cases should include victim input through the victim's assertion of the right to be free from unreasonable delay." 539
In view of all the different ways in which crime victims can be heard, it is appropriate to have a rule that speaks broadly to the subject and protects victims' right to be heard whenever their rights are at stake. My proposed rule achieves that goal.
[*958] (New) Rule 60(b) - Enforcement of Victims' Rights The Proposals:
I proposed folding into the procedures a victim's right to assert an error as follows:
Rule 51. Preserving Claimed Error
(a) Exceptions Unnecessary. Exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary.
531 See supra notes 434-448 and accompanying text (discussing victim allocution).
532 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1).
533 Id.
534 Id. § 3771(d)(3).
535 See, e.g., United States v. Tobin, No. 04-CR-216-01-SM, 2005 WL 1868682, at 2 (D.N.H. July 22, 2005) (allowing putative victim to assert right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay even though bail, plea, or sentencing hearing not at issue).
536 150 Cong. Rec. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).
537 150 Cong. Rec. S4269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (emphases added).
538 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7).
539 150 Cong. Rec. S10911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added) (reprinted in Appendix B).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document