HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg

2.34 MB

Extraction Summary

5
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal brief / law journal excerpt
File Size: 2.34 MB
Summary

This document is page 14 of a legal filing or journal article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) restrictive interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding whether victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. The text analyzes and distinguishes prior case law (Turner, Paletz, Skinner), arguing that these cases do not preclude CVRA rights during the investigation phase.

People (5)

Name Role Context
David Schoen Attorney/Author
Name appears at the bottom of the page, likely the submitter of the document.
Turner Defendant/Case Subject
Referenced in case law 'Turner', discussed regarding victim identification.
Paletz Defendant/Case Subject
Referenced in case law 'Searcy v. Paletz' involving a pro se civil suit.
Skinner Plaintiff/Case Subject
Referenced in case law involving an inmate suit.
Searcy Plaintiff
Plaintiff in Searcy v. Paletz (cited in footnotes).

Organizations (7)

Name Type Context
OLC
Office of Legal Counsel, criticized for its memorandum regarding CVRA rights.
Department
Department of Justice (DOJ), referred to regarding its legal position.
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Defendant in the Paletz case.
FBI
Defendant in the Paletz case.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Court that issued an opinion criticizing the interpretation of Skinner and Paletz.
House Oversight Committee
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
Second Circuit
Court of Appeals mentioned in footnote 112.

Timeline (2 events)

February 21, 2008
Decision in United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc.
S.D. Tex.
BP Products
June 27, 2007
Decision in Searcy v. Paletz
D.S.C.

Locations (2)

Location Context
Jurisdiction of a court opinion cited.
District of South Carolina (implied by case citations in footnotes).

Relationships (2)

Searcy Legal Adversaries Paletz
Searcy v. Paletz case citation.
David Schoen Submitter/Recipient House Oversight Committee
Name David Schoen appears on document with House Oversight Bates stamp.

Key Quotes (5)

"The judge suggested that 'any person who self-identifies as [a victim]' could be presumed to qualify for protection under the CVRA as a preliminary matter."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
Quote #1
"The full sentence reads: 'While the offense charged against a defendant can [*79] serve as a basis for identifying a 'crime victim' as defined in the CVRA, the class of victims with statutory rights may well be broader.'"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
Quote #2
"OLC [*80] vastly overstates its position when it asserts"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
Quote #3
"CVRA is designed to give victims certain rights 'within the prosecutorial process against a criminal defendant.'"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
Quote #4
"reading these two decisions as standing for the proposition that charges must be filed for CVRA rights to attach 'appears inconsistent with the CVRA recognition of certain subsection (a) rights that apply during investigation, before any charging instrument is filed.'"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,171 characters)

Page 14 of 31
104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *78
poor fit. Although OLC's memorandum characterizes Turner as excluding victims of uncharged conduct, 105 the magistrate judge adopted an inclusive reading of the statute precisely because of his reservations about the CVRA's legislative history and plain language. The judge suggested that "any person who self-identifies as [a victim]" could be presumed to qualify for protection under the CVRA as a preliminary matter. 106 In fact, the line quoted by the Department is lifted out of context. The full sentence reads: "While the offense charged against a defendant can [*79] serve as a basis for identifying a 'crime victim' as defined in the CVRA, the class of victims with statutory rights may well be broader." 107
Paletz and Skinner similarly provide scant support for the Department's position. In Skinner, a prison inmate attempted to bring a pro se civil suit against another inmate for allegedly attacking him during incarceration. 108 In dismissing the suit in an unpublished decision, the district court recognized that the Government had expressly declined to bring charges against the other inmate and concluded that the CVRA did not create a "mechanism to bring an action against Defendant directly." 109 In Paletz, that same inmate brought a similar pro se claim against another inmate, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney General. 110 In a parallel, unpublished decision, the district court dismissed the suit, noting that the CVRA is designed to give victims certain rights "within the prosecutorial process against a criminal defendant." 111
Because Skinner and Paletz involve (apparently frivolous) civil suits, they say nothing about the CVRA's reach in criminal cases, and any language to that effect would be pure dicta. Moreover, the courts' terse analysis in both cases does not contain any substantive discussion of whether CVRA rights apply in criminal cases before the filing of charges. Instead, the courts simply cited to language from a Second Circuit decision that stated that the CVRA does not give victims any rights against defendants until those defendants have been convicted 112 - a holding clearly limited to restitution, as many other CVRA rights clearly apply before conviction. 113 Reviewing these two cases in an extended, published opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas noted that reading these two decisions as standing for the proposition that charges must be filed for CVRA rights to attach "appears inconsistent with the CVRA recognition of certain subsection (a) rights that apply during investigation, before any charging instrument is filed." 114 As a result, OLC [*80] vastly overstates its position when it asserts
________________________________________________________________________________
103 No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 WL 1875802 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007).
104 No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006).
105 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 6 n.6.
106 Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d at 327 ("Instead, I have taken and will continue to follow an inclusive approach: absent an affirmative reason to think otherwise, I will presume that any person whom the government asserts was harmed by conduct attributed to a defendant, as well as any person who self-identifies as such, enjoys all of the procedural and substantive rights set forth in § 3771.").
107 Id. at 326.
108 Skinner, 2006 WL 1677177, at 1-2.
109 Id. at 2.
110 Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 WL 1875802, at 1-2 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007).
111 Id. at 2.
112 Id. ("However, "the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime."" (quoting In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005))).
113 Of course, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution as part of his sentence until he has been found guilty. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (2012) (describing sentencing procedures for ordering restitution).
114 United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at 12 n.7 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document