HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684.jpg

2.04 MB

Extraction Summary

4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document / house oversight production / law review excerpt
File Size: 2.04 MB
Summary

This document is page 49 of a larger 78-page filing produced to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from the 2007 Utah Law Review proposing or discussing legal rules related to sentencing recommendations, specifically emphasizing the rights of victims to object to presentence reports and participate in sentencing hearings. The text outlines procedural steps for objections, the role of probation officers, and court determinations.

People (4)

Name Role Context
David Schoen Attorney / Submitter
Name appears at the bottom of the document, likely indicating he submitted this document or is the subject of the file.
Cassell Legal Scholar / Author
Referenced in footnote 392 regarding 'Proposed Amendments' to sentencing rules.
Probation Officer Legal Official
Mentioned throughout the text regarding their role in the presentence report and handling objections.
The Victim Party in Legal Proceedings
The text focuses heavily on the rights of the victim to object to reports and participate in sentencing.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Utah Law Review
Source of the legal text (2007 Utah L. Rev. 861).
House Oversight Committee
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.

Timeline (1 events)

December 2006
Amendment of sentencing rule
US Legal System

Locations (1)

Location Context
Referenced in the citation 'Utah L. Rev.'.

Relationships (1)

David Schoen Production/Submission House Oversight Committee
Schoen's name appears on a document stamped with House Oversight Bates numbering.

Key Quotes (3)

"I further recommended that victims be given the opportunity to object to and be heard on disputed issues in the presentence report"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684.jpg
Quote #1
"The attorney for the government or for the victim shall raise for the victim any reasonable objection by the victim to the presentence report."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684.jpg
Quote #2
"This rule was amended in December 2006... to conform with the new, post-Booker regime."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,592 characters)

Page 49 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *929
(3) Sentence Recommendation. By local rule or by order in a case, the court may direct the probation officer not to disclose to anyone other than the court the officer's recommendation on the sentence. 392
I further recommended that victims be given the opportunity to object to and be heard on disputed issues in the presentence report as follows:
(f) Objecting to the Report.
(1) Time to Object. Within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, the parties must state in writing any objections, including objections to material information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the report. The attorney for the government or for the victim shall raise for the victim any reasonable objection by the victim to the presentence report.
(2) Serving Objections. An objecting party must provide a copy of its objections to the opposing party and to the probation officer.
(3) Action on Objections. After receiving objections, the probation officer may meet with the parties and the victim to discuss the objections. The probation officer may then investigate further and revise the presentence report as appropriate.
. . . .
(h) Notice of Intent to Consider Other Sentencing Factors. 393 Before the court may rely on a ground not identified either in the [*930] presentence report or in a party's prehearing submission or in a victim impact statement, the court must give the parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating either departing from the applicable guideline range or imposing a non-guideline sentence. The notice must specify any ground not earlier identified on which the court is contemplating a departure or a non-guideline sentence. The attorney for the government or for the victim shall advise defense counsel and the court of any ground identified by the victim that might reasonably serve as a basis for departure.
(i) Sentencing.
(1) In General. At sentencing, the court:
(A) must verify that the defendant and the defendant's attorney have read and discussed the presentence report and any addendum to the report;
(B) must give to the defendant and an attorney for the government a written summary of - or summarize in camera - any information excluded from the presentence report under Rule 32(d)(3) on which the court will rely in sentencing, and give them a reasonable opportunity to comment on that information;
(C) must allow the parties' attorneys and any victims to comment on the probation officer's determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate sentence; and
(D) may, for good cause, allow a party or any victim to make a new objection at any time before sentence is imposed.
(2) Introducing Evidence; Producing a Statement. The court may permit the parties or the victim to introduce evidence on the objections. If a witness testifies at sentencing, Rule 26.2(a)-(d) and (f) applies. If a party fails to comply with a Rule 26.2 order to produce a witness's statement, the court must not consider that witness's testimony.
(3) Court Determinations. At sentencing, the court:
(A) may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact;
___________________
392 Cassell, Proposed Amendments, supra note 4, at 892.
393 This rule was amended in December 2006, after my earlier article was published, to change "departure" language to conform with the new, post-Booker regime. I have accordingly changed the language quoted in the text above to conform to the current language.
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document