This document is page 88 of a legal text (likely a law review article by Cassell et al., Vol 104) included in a House Oversight Committee production. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) and the Department of Justice's interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding when a 'prosecution' officially begins and when victims can assert their rights. The text argues that the OLC's narrow interpretation—that prosecution only begins at indictment rather than complaint—is 'twisted' and contradicts standard criminal procedure definitions.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cassell | Author |
Lead author listed in header (Cassell et al.)
|
| Wayne R. LaFave | Cited Author |
Cited in footnote 168 regarding Criminal Procedure
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Referred to as 'The Department', arguing interpretations of the CVRA
|
|
| OLC |
Office of Legal Counsel, whose memo and interpretations are being critiqued
|
|
| Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in footnote 167 regarding United States v. Alvarado
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'
|
"OLC’s interpretation of the word “prosecution” in the Department’s narrow construction of the venue provision is a twisted one, at odds with the way that term is conventionally used."Source
"[w]ith the filing of the complaint, the arrestee officially becomes a ‘defendant’ in a criminal prosecution."Source
"OLC believes it is only to such post-complaint, yet pre-indictment, proceedings... that the venue provision’s “no-prosecution-underway” language covers."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,932 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document