HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
2.5 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal article / law review excerpt (utah law review)
File Size:
2.5 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding victims' rights (CVRA). It details changes to Rules 1, 5, 12.1, 12.3, and 17 proposed by the Advisory Committee in 2007, specifically focusing on victim representation, protection during detention hearings, and subpoena notifications. The document bears the name of David Schoen, Epstein's attorney, and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of legal materials submitted to Congress regarding the handling of the Epstein case and victims' rights statutes.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Schoen | Attorney (Footer Name) |
Name appears at the bottom center of the document, indicating he likely submitted this document to House Oversight.
|
| Senator Kyl | Legislator |
Mentioned regarding proposed legislation implementing the CVRA.
|
| Hon. Susan C. Bucklew | Chair, Advisory Comm. on Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure |
Author of a memorandum cited in footnote 580.
|
| Hon. David F. Levi | Chair, Standing Comm. on Rules of Practice and Procedure |
Recipient of a memorandum cited in footnote 580.
|
| Professor Sara Sun Beale | Reporter, Advisory Comm. on Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure |
Author of a memorandum cited in footnote 581.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory Committee |
Refers to the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Body to which the Advisory Committee submitted rules.
|
|
| American Bar Association |
Objected to earlier rules regarding subpoenas.
|
|
| Utah Law Review |
Publication source of the text.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the October 1, 2007 Advisory Committee meeting.
|
Relationships (2)
Footer name and Bates stamp imply Schoen provided this document to the committee.
Susan C. Bucklew
→
Professional Correspondence
→
David F. Levi
Memorandum sent from Bucklew to Levi cited in footnotes.
Key Quotes (4)
"Rule 60(b)(2) now provides: "A victim's rights described in these rules may be asserted by the victim, the victim's lawful representative, the attorney for the government, or any other person as authorized [*967] by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d) and (e).""Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
Quote #1
"In making the decision to detain or release the defendant, the judge must consider the right of the victim to be reasonably protected from the defendant."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
Quote #2
"courts lack authority to force a victim to meet with a defendant"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
Quote #3
"Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require that notice be given to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,266 characters)
Page 75 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *966
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *966
In response to this Article and to other public criticisms of its rules, the Advisory Committee made several modest changes to its proposed rules. These changes are discussed in numerical order here. Other than these changes, no significant changes were made to the proposed rules discussed here. The Advisory Committee has submitted them all to the Supreme Court and, unless the Court takes the unusual step of disavowing them, they will go into effect on December 1, 2008.
Rule 1. In apparent response to my criticism that the definition of "victim" found in Rule 1 intentionally excluded a victim's "representative," 578 on April 16, 2007, the Advisory Committee amended its proposed Rule 60 to allow a victim's representative to assert a right. Rule 60(b)(2) now provides: "A victim's rights described in these rules may be asserted by the victim, the victim's lawful representative, the attorney for the government, or any other person as authorized [*967] by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d) and (e)." 579 This change insures that victims' representatives will be able to assert victims' rights. The Advisory Committee also added language to the Committee Note stating that courts could make appropriate findings to resolve any dispute about who is a victim. 580
Rule 5. At its October 1, 2007 meeting in Utah, the Advisory Committee approved a proposed change to Rule 5 regarding detention hearings. The proposed addition to Rule 5 reads: "In making the decision to detain or release the defendant, the judge must consider the right of the victim to be reasonably protected from the defendant." 581 This language was lifted almost straight from Senator Kyl's proposed legislation implementing the CVRA 582 (which is discussed in the next section). This seems like a valuable addition to the Rules, helping to protect victims' rights in detention decisions.
Rule 12.1. At its April 16, 2007 meeting, the Advisory Committee apparently agreed with my conclusion that courts lack authority to force a victim to meet with a defendant 583 and struck language recommending such a meeting from its Committee note. 584
Rule 12.3. Also at its October 1, 2007 meeting, the Advisory Committee responded to my point that the same language appears in both Rule 12.1 (alibi defense) and Rule 12.3 (public authority defense) regarding disclosure of addresses of crime victims. 585 It therefore proposed to add the same changes to Rule 12.3 that it added to Rule 12.1. 586 Unfortunately, for the reasons discussed at length here, now the language in both Rule 12.1 and 12.3 is insufficiently protective of victims' rights. 587
Rule 17. At its April 16, 2007 meeting, the Advisory Committee revised its rule on subpoenas for confidential information to read: "Before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require that notice be given to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object." 588 This change responds to objections from the American Bar Association, other groups, and me that the earlier rule encouraged ex parte [*968] issuance
578 See supra notes 117-126 and accompanying text.
579 Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 60(b)(2), at 17 (emphasis added).
580 Memorandum from Hon. Susan C. Bucklew, Chair, Advisory Comm. on Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure, to Hon. David F. Levi, Chair, Standing Comm. on Rules of Practice and Procedure app. a, at 271-72 (May 19, 2007) [hereinafter Bucklew Memo], available at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/CR05-2007.pdf.
581 Memorandum from Professor Sara Sun Beale, Reporter, Advisory Comm. on Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure, to Members of the Criminal Rules Advisory Comm. 136 (Sept. 2, 2007) [hereinafter Beale Memo].
582 S. 1749, 110th Cong. § 5 (2007).
583 See supra notes 206-211 and accompanying text.
584 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 277.
585 See supra notes 202-203 and accompanying text.
586 Beale Memo, supra note 581, app. at 7.
587 See supra notes 187-191 and accompanying text (explaining why changes to Rule 12.1 leave victims' addresses vulnerable to unfair disclosure).
588 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 283.
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document