HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg

2.17 MB

Extraction Summary

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

Document Information

Type: Legal document / law review article (house oversight exhibit)
File Size: 2.17 MB
Summary

This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 58 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the legal rights of crime victims, specifically the appointment of counsel and the right to be heard regarding a defendant's release. It cites the case *United States v. Stamper* and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The document bears the name David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as evidence or background material in a congressional investigation, likely related to the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case given Schoen's involvement as Epstein's lawyer.

People (5)

Name Role Context
David Schoen Attorney / Document Custodian
Name appears at the bottom of the document, indicating he likely produced this document for the House Oversight Commi...
Stamper Defendant
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Stamper.
Beloof Author
Cited in footnote 457.
Cassell Author
Cited in footnotes 457 and 464.
Twist Author
Cited in footnote 457.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
Utah Law Review
Publisher of the text (2007 Utah L. Rev. 861).
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Court that presided over the Stamper case.
Congress
Mentioned regarding appropriations for counsel payment.
Advisory Committee
Mentioned regarding proposals to change legal rules.
House Oversight Committee
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.

Timeline (1 events)

1991
United States v. Stamper case decision
Western District of North Carolina
Stamper U.S. District Court

Locations (1)

Location Context
Jurisdiction of the Stamper case.

Relationships (1)

David Schoen Document Production House Oversight Committee
Name 'DAVID SCHOEN' appears above Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693'.

Key Quotes (4)

"My proposed rule would simply confirm the existing discretionary power of the courts to appoint volunteer counsel demonstrated in cases like Stamper."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg
Quote #1
"A victim has the right to be heard regarding any decision to release the defendant."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg
Quote #2
"The court shall consider the views of victims in making any release decision, including such decisions in petty cases."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg
Quote #3
"prosecutors are obligated by the CVRA to 'advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek advice of an attorney...'"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,820 characters)

Page 58 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *942
that lawyers provide assistance to indigent criminal defendants. Presumably, that same power extends to requesting assistance for crime victims. 457 In light of all these facts, federal courts have the inherent power to request attorneys to represent indigent crime victims.
An illustration of this power is found in a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in United States v. Stamper. 458 In this rape case, a dispute arose over the admission of certain psychiatric reports concerning the victim that the defense alleged demonstrated a pattern of making false allegations of sexual abuse. 459 She requested independent counsel to protect her privacy interests. 460 After consulting with the victim, the court appointed counsel for her. 461 The court then allowed her counsel to participate in hearings regarding the evidence, including cross-examination of the relevant witnesses. 462
My proposed rule would simply confirm the existing discretionary power of the courts to appoint volunteer counsel demonstrated in cases like Stamper. The rule is purely discretionary (the court "may" appoint counsel) and is limited to situations where the interests of justice require appointment. The rule does not address payment for counsel, as this matter must be left to subsequent appropriations from Congress. The court, however, can ask for volunteer counsel to assist victims pro bono.
Finally, it might be argued that it is unnecessary to address this subject in a rule because the court's inherent authority to appoint counsel exists even without a rule. Both courts and victims, however, will find it useful to have this authority close at hand in the criminal rules. Rule 44 already covers the subject of appointing counsel for defendants in great detail, so adding a Rule 44.1 addressing victims' counsel is a natural corollary. In addition, prosecutors are obligated by the CVRA to "advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a)." 463 This may frequently [*943] require prosecutors to help victims obtain legal counsel. Accordingly, a separate rule on this subject is appropriate. For all these reasons, the Rules should be amended to recognize the court's authority to appoint volunteer counsel to represent a crime victim.
Rule 46 - Victims' Right to Be Heard Regarding Defendant's Release from Custody The Proposal:
I proposed that a victim should be given the right to offer views regarding the defendant's release from custody and that the court should consider those views as follows:
(k) Victims' Right to Be Heard. A victim has the right to be heard regarding any decision to release the defendant. The court shall consider the views of victims in making any release decision, including such decisions in petty cases. In a case where the court finds that the number of victims makes it impracticable to accord all of the victims the right to be heard in open court, the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to facilitate hearing from representative victims. 464
The Advisory Committee proposed no change to this rule. 465 It did, however, propose a global rule that would give victims a right to be heard at proceedings involving release:
________________________________________________________________________________
457 See Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 6, at 381-82 (suggesting this conclusion).
458 766 F. Supp. 1396, 1397 (W.D.N.C. 1991).
459 Id. at 1396.
460 Id. at 1397.
461 Id.
462 Id.
463 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(2) (2006).
464 Cassell, Proposed Amendments, supra note 4, at 917.
465 See Proposed Amendments, supra note 71 (showing no proposed change for Rule 46(k)).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document