HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058.jpg
1.65 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
10
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal analysis / law review article (part of house oversight committee records)
File Size:
1.65 MB
Summary
This document appears to be page 79 of a 2014 legal analysis or law review article, included in a House Oversight Committee production (likely related to the Epstein investigation regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act). The text analyzes the 'Paletz' and 'Skinner' cases to argue that CVRA rights should apply during investigations, not just after conviction or charging. It critiques the Department of Justice's position by citing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which found that limiting CVRA rights only to post-charging scenarios is inconsistent with the statute.
Organizations (10)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Referred to as 'the Department's position'.
|
|
| Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Defendant in the Paletz case.
|
|
| FBI |
Defendant in the Paletz case.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney General |
Defendant in the Paletz case.
|
|
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
Court that issued an opinion noting inconsistencies in CVRA interpretation.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited regarding CVRA rights and conviction.
|
|
| OLC |
Office of Legal Counsel, mentioned at the very end of the text.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by document stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
|
| BP Prods. N. Am. Inc. |
Party in cited case United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc.
|
|
| W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. |
Party in cited case In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of U.S. District Court.
|
|
|
District of South Carolina (cited in footnote 110).
|
Relationships (2)
Inmate brought claim against Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Key Quotes (3)
"the CVRA did not create a 'mechanism to bring an action against Defendant directly.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058.jpg
Quote #1
"the CVRA is designed to give victims certain rights 'within the prosecutorial process against a criminal defendant.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058.jpg
Quote #2
"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_014058.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,844 characters)
2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 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 convicted112—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
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 convicted112—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
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).
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).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document