DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two victims, Sarah and Elizabeth, have the right to speak at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. The argument is based on both the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the court's broad discretionary power to hear from victims when determining a sentence. The document emphasizes the importance of victim statements for their own healing and as a source of information for the court.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout as the defendant in a sex trafficking conspiracy case, at whose sentencing victims wish to speak.
|
| Sarah | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim who believes it is important to be given an opportunity to speak at Maxwell's sentencing.
|
| Elizabeth | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim who believes it is important to be given an opportunity to speak at Maxwell's sentencing.
|
| Payne |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 808 (1991)'.
|
|
| Degenhardt |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d at 1348'.
|
|
| Tucker |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972)'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Department | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as being obligated under the CVRA to use its 'best efforts' to protect the rights of crime vi...
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'Payne v. Tennessee'.
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes Sarah as a victim of Maxwell's sex trafficking conspiracy who wishes to speak at her sentencing.
Key Quotes (4)
"to regain a sense of dignity and respect rather than feeling powerless and ashamed."Source
— Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d at 1348
(Quoted to explain why crime victims often want to speak directly to the perpetrator.)
DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
Quote #1
"[A] judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry"Source
— United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972)
(Cited to support the argument that federal courts have wide discretion to gather information at sentencing.)
DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
Quote #2
"best efforts"Source
— CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act)
(Describing the Justice Department's obligation to protect the rights of crime victims.)
DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
Quote #3
"crime victims"Source
— CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act)
(Referencing the group whose rights the Justice Department is obligated to protect.)
DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,100 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 675 Filed 06/25/22 Page 8 of 21
authority about such harm.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 808 (1991). Speaking directly to Maxwell in this case is particularly important for these victims. Crime victims often want to speak “to regain a sense of dignity and respect rather than feeling powerless and ashamed.” Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d at 1348 (internal quotation omitted). Here, Sarah and Elizabeth believe it is important that they be given an opportunity to speak as part of the process of overcoming the horrific impact of Maxwell’s sex trafficking conspiracy on them and others.
II. Regardless of Whether Sarah and Elizabeth are CVRA “Victims,” the Court Undoubtedly Possesses Discretion to Hear from them at Sentencing Under 18 U.S.C. § 3661
For all the reasons just explained, Sarah and Elizabeth have the right to speak at Maxwell’s sentencing under the CVRA. Additionally, this Court also possesses broad discretionary power, derived from statute and common law, to hear from them when determining the appropriate sentence for Maxwell’s crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661; see also Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d at 1343 (discussing the court’s discretionary powers to hear from victims).
The Court’s discretion in this case is important not only because it provides an alternative basis for considering Sarah’s and Elizabeth’s victim impact, but also because the Court may have other requests to speak at Maxwell’s sentencing. Some of these other victims may not be able to afford legal counsel to present their arguments to this Court.¹ Federal courts have wide discretion to gather information at sentencing subject to only a few constitutional or statutory restrictions. See United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972) (“[A] judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry
¹ Under the CVRA, the Justice Department is obligated to use its “best efforts” to protect the rights of “crime victims.” 18 U.S.C § 3771(c)(1). We trust that the Department will present factual and legal arguments in support of victims being heard at sentencing.
8
DOJ-OGR-00010699
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document