HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067.jpg

1.73 MB

Extraction Summary

2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal academic article / congressional oversight document
File Size: 1.73 MB
Summary

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.

People (2)

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

Organizations (4)

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'

Relationships (1)

OLC Advisory Department of Justice
The text discusses OLC's view and memos which support the Department's legal contentions.

Key Quotes (3)

"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
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067.jpg
Quote #1
"[w]ith the filing of the complaint, the arrestee officially becomes a ‘defendant’ in a criminal prosecution."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067.jpg
Quote #2
"OLC believes it is only to such post-complaint, yet pre-indictment, proceedings... that the venue provision’s “no-prosecution-underway” language covers."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,932 characters)

88 CASSELL ET AL. [Vol. 104]
crime victims to assert CVRA rights “in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred.”165 The Department contends that this language refers quite narrowly to the “period of time between the filing of a complaint and the initiation of formal charges.”166 In support of its position, the Department cites a Fourth Circuit case interpreting the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which held that a “prosecution” for purposes of that Amendment does not begin when a criminal complaint is filed.167 In OLC’s view, the venue provision’s direction that victims should assert rights when “no prosecution is underway” applies only to the limited time between when the Government files a complaint against a defendant and some later point when the “prosecution” actually begins. OLC notes that the filing of a complaint triggers an initial appearance, where crime victims can have important interests at stake, such as the right to be heard about a defendant’s release on bail. OLC believes it is only to such post-complaint, yet pre-indictment, proceedings (i.e., the initial appearance) that the venue provision’s “no-prosecution-underway” language covers.
As a preliminary matter, 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. The filing of a complaint is typically viewed as the start of a criminal prosecution. For example, the leading criminal procedure hornbook states that “[w]ith the filing of the complaint, the arrestee officially becomes a ‘defendant’ in a criminal prosecution.”168
Moreover, having specifically rejected the filing of the criminal complaint as the starting point for a “prosecution” within the CVRA’s venue provision, OLC refuses to consider the implications of its alterative starting point: the formal filing of an indictment. OLC states that “a prosecution of a felony must commence with the return of an indictment by a grand jury,” citing the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.169 Yet OLC does not pause to recognize that, while felonies proceed by way of indictment, misdemeanors can proceed not only by indictment but also by complaint.170 The CVRA draws no distinction between misdemeanor and
165 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (2012)).
166 Id.
167 Id. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)).
168 WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 1.2(g), at 11 (5th ed. 2009) (emphasis added).
169 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(a)(1)).
170 FED. R. CRIM. P. 58(b)(1) (“The trial of a misdemeanor may proceed on an indictment, information, or complaint.” (emphasis added)).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document