HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605.jpg

2.64 MB

Extraction Summary

9
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal journal article / congressional oversight document
File Size: 2.64 MB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal article (Page 2 of 31) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and whether victim rights apply before formal charges are filed. It highlights a conflict between a 2010 DOJ OLC opinion, which argued rights do not attach pre-charging, and Senator Jon Kyl, who argued they do. The text specifically uses the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case in Florida as a concrete example of the controversy, noting that victims argued they should have been consulted regarding his non-prosecution agreement.

People (9)

Name Role Context
Jeffrey Epstein Case Subject
Used as a concrete illustration of a case where pre-charging rights for victims were an issue regarding a nonprosecut...
Jon Kyl Senator / CVRA Sponsor
Sent a letter to AG Eric Holder objecting to the DOJ's interpretation of the CVRA.
Eric Holder Attorney General
Recipient of letter from Senator Jon Kyl regarding CVRA rights.
David Schoen Footer Name
Name appears at the bottom center of the page, suggesting involvement in the document's creation or submission (likel...
Scott Campbell Namesake
Listed in the full title of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in footnote 1.
Stephanie Roper Namesake
Listed in the full title of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in footnote 1.
Wendy Preston Namesake
Listed in the full title of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in footnote 1.
Louarna Gillis Namesake
Listed in the full title of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in footnote 1.
Nila Lynn Namesake
Listed in the full title of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in footnote 1.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
Department of Justice
Federal agency whose OLC issued an opinion limiting victim rights.
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
Division of DOJ that released the 2010 opinion.
Congress
Legislative body that enacted the CVRA.
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
Publisher of the article (inferred from header).
House Oversight Committee
Inferred from the 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605' stamp.

Timeline (3 events)

2004
Enactment of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
USA
2010
DOJ OLC releases opinion limiting CVRA rights during investigations.
Washington D.C.
Undated (Contextual)
Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case / Non-prosecution agreement.
Florida

Locations (1)

Location Context
Location of the federal court handling the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case.

Relationships (3)

Jon Kyl Political/Legal Adversary on Policy Eric Holder
Kyl sent a letter strenuously objecting to the Department's conclusions under Holder.
Prosecutors worked out a nonprosecution agreement with Epstein.
David Schoen Document Source/Subject House Oversight Committee
Name appears on footer of document stamped with House Oversight bates number.

Key Quotes (4)

"specifically, the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case before a federal court in Florida."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605.jpg
Quote #1
"In that case, girls victimized by Epstein have argued that they should have been consulted about a federal nonprosecution agreement"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605.jpg
Quote #2
"when Congress enacted the [*62] CVRA, it intended to protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice process - from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605.jpg
Quote #3
"Department attorneys have responded that because prosecutors never filed charges, government officials had no formal obligations to inform the girls."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,605 characters)

Page 2 of 31
104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *59
[*61]
Introduction
In recent years, federal and state enactments have given crime victims extensive rights to participate in criminal cases. Many of these rights apply only after the filing of criminal charges, such as the victim's right to be heard during court proceedings. A crime victim's right to deliver an impact statement at sentencing, for instance, can only be exercised after a prosecutor has filed charges against a defendant and obtained a conviction. Other rights, however, can apply even before the formal filing of charges. As one example, the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) ¹ extends to federal crime victims the right to "confer" with prosecutors. But can victims exercise this right before charges have been filed?
This question has tremendous practical importance. In many cases, prosecutors negotiate pleas well before any charges are ever drafted. If crime victims' rights enactments do not extend rights to victims until the formal filing of charges, then crime victims can be effectively excluded from the plea bargaining process. Yet the exclusion of victims in early stages of a criminal case affects more than just the content of a plea deal. Crime victims will also lose other important rights in the process if the formal filing of charges is the necessary trigger for those rights. If, for example, prosecutors work out a nonprosecution agreement with an offender, they need not notify his victims of what they are doing or of the fact that potential charges will never be filed.
The issue of pre-charging rights has most prominently surfaced in connection with federal cases. In 2010, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) weighed in on the issue and released a legal opinion arguing that victims of federal crimes have no CVRA rights during a federal criminal investigation. ² The Justice Department took the position that rights under the CVRA do not apply until prosecutors formally initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint, information, or indictment. The Department claims to find support for that limiting interpretation of the statute in its plain language and legislative history.
Shortly after the Department released its opinion, one of the CVRA's congressional sponsors, then-Senator Jon Kyl, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder strenuously objecting to the Department's conclusions. Senator Kyl directly stated his view that "when Congress enacted the [*62] CVRA, it intended to protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice process - from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case." ³ Senator Kyl contested the Department's analysis of the statute and, in particular, its use of statements from him during Congress's consideration of the CVRA.
This Article sides with the CVRA's cosponsor and concludes that crime victims' CVRA rights attach before formal charging. Both the CVRA's plain language and its legislative history lead inexorably to this conclusion, as every court that has considered this issue has concluded. This Article also contends that, as a matter of sound public policy, crime victims should have rights before the formal filing of criminal charges.
This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I frames the issues under discussion by defending the importance of extending rights to crime victims during criminal investigations. Part I also provides background on victims' rights and gives a concrete illustration of a case in which the question of pre-charging rights for crime victims has arisen - specifically, the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case before a federal court in Florida. In that case, girls victimized by Epstein have argued that they should have been consulted about a federal nonprosecution agreement; Department attorneys have responded that because prosecutors never filed charges, government officials had no formal obligations to inform the girls.
¹ Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260, 2261-65 (2004) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (2012) and 42 U.S.C. § 10603(d)-(e) (2006)).
² The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004, 35 Op. O.L.C. 1 (Dec. 17, 2010) [hereinafter OLC CVRA Rights Memo], available at http://goo.gl/fHmCL4.
³ Letter from Jon Kyl, U.S. Sen., to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att'y Gen. (June 6, 2011), reprinted in 157 Cong. Rec. S3608 (daily ed. June 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document