HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg

1.74 MB

Extraction Summary

3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document / law review excerpt / exhibit
File Size: 1.74 MB
Summary

This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in files produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal arguments regarding the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 60 and 48) specifically concerning the rights of victims to be heard during release hearings and case dismissals. The text critiques the Advisory Committee's approach as an 'empty gesture' and advocates for stronger requirements for courts to consider victims' views.

People (3)

Name Role Context
David Schoen Attorney / Document Custodian
Name appears at the bottom center of the document, indicating he submitted or possessed this filing.
Cassell Legal Scholar / Author
Cited in footnote 469 as author of 'Proposed Amendments'. Likely Paul Cassell, the author of the text arguing for vic...
Sen. Kyl Senator
Cited in footnote 468 regarding a statement in the Congressional Record.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Utah Law Review
Source of the text (2007 Utah L. Rev. 861).
Advisory Committee
Refers to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, whose proposals are being critiqued in the text.
House Oversight Committee
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
District Court
Venue mentioned for public proceedings.

Timeline (2 events)

2007
Publication of the Utah Law Review article discussing victims' rights.
Utah (Publication)
October 9, 2004
Statement by Sen. Kyl in the Congressional Record regarding victim safety.
Congress

Relationships (2)

David Schoen Investigation Subject/Provider House Oversight Committee
Schoen's name appears on a document stamped with House Oversight Bates numbering.
Cassell Professional/Legal Disagreement Advisory Committee
Text contrasts 'my proposal' (Cassell) with the 'Advisory Committee's global proposal'.

Key Quotes (3)

"The Advisory Committee proposal seemingly codifies an empty gesture."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg
Quote #1
"In contrast, my proposal would take the straightforward and important step of requiring a court to consider the views of the victim in determining any release decision."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg
Quote #2
"In deciding whether to grant the government's motion to dismiss, the court shall consider the views of any victims."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,981 characters)

Page 59 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *943
Rule 60. Victims
(a) Rights of Victims.
. . . .
(3) Right to Be Heard.
The court must permit a victim to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court concerning release . . . involving the crime. 466
Discussion:
The Advisory Committee's global proposal gives victims the right to be "heard" on release decisions; but it fails to spell out what effect, if any, the [*944] victim's statement would have after the court heard the victim. In other words, the Advisory Committee proposal seemingly codifies an empty gesture.
In contrast, my proposal would take the straightforward and important step of requiring a court to consider the views of the victim in determining any release decision. 467 That requirement is added directly into the rule governing release decisions - Rule 46. Adding a specific rule with specific consequences is far preferable to the Advisory Committee's approach and is consistent with the CVRA's goal of ensuring "reasonable conditions of pre-trial and post-conviction relief that include protections for the victim's safety." 468
Rule 48 - Victims' Views on Dismissal to be Considered The Proposals:
I proposed that the court should be required to consider the views of victims in deciding whether to grant a government's motion to dismiss a case as follows:
Rule 48. Dismissal
(a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent. In deciding whether to grant the government's motion to dismiss, the court shall consider the views of any victims. 469
The Advisory Committee proposed no change to this rule. 470
Discussion:
The Advisory Committee declined to adopt this recommendation for several reasons:
The Subcommittee recognized that victims will have a great interest in whether charges are dismissed. The CVRA does not, however, explicitly address dismissals, and it speaks only of not excluding the [victim] from, and providing the [victim with] ... a right to be reasonably heard at public proceedings in the district court. If the government moves for dismissal there is ordinarily no public proceeding. (When there is a [*945] public proceeding, the victim's right not to be excluded, and to be reasonably heard is provided for in Rule [60].)
________
466 Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 60(a)(3), at 16.
467 Existing law has places where a victim's views could profitably be brought to bear. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) (court to consider whether release of the defendant "will endanger the safety of any other person").
468 See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. S10910, S10910 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
469 Cassell, Proposed Amendments, supra note 4, at 918.
470 See Proposed Amendments, supra note 71 (showing no proposed change for Rule 48).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document