HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017750.jpg

Page 36 of 52
2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *896

to full and timely restitution as provided in law." 253 As a practical matter, many of the calculations supporting a restitution
award will rest on information in the presentence report. While the restitution statutes have their own detailed procedural
provisions, 254 the presentence report is clearly a central part of the restitution process. If a presentence report fails to
accurately recount restitution figures, crime victims may be short-changed. For all these reasons, the CVRA should be
understood as giving victims the right to review relevant parts of the presentence report and to be heard before a court makes
any final conclusions about Guidelines calculations and other sentencing issues. Many states follow a similar approach and
give victims access to the presentence report. 255

In February 2005, I testified before the Sentencing Commission to recommend a change in the U.S. Sentencing Commission
Guidelines Manual along the lines of the proposals contained in this [*897] Article. 256 In particular, I suggested that the
Commission change its current rule, which allows only the parties to see the presentence report. 257 The Practitioners'
Advisory Group to the Sentencing Commission later disputed my proposal. In a letter to the Commission, 258 they argued that
"nothing in the CVRA or its legislative history states that crime victims should be permitted to review portions of the
presentence report, dispute guidelines calculations, raise grounds for departure, or, as such rights would seem to imply, appeal a
sentence on factual or legal grounds." 259 The Practitioners' Group also cited the drafting history of the proposed constitutional
amendment protecting victims' rights, which they thought was limited to giving a victim merely the right to "allocute" at
sentencing - that is, merely to provide victim impact information. 260

The Practitioners' Group's arguments are flawed for several reasons. First, the Group too narrowly views the relevant legislative
history of the CVRA. As explained above, Congress intended for victims to have broad rights in the sentencing process,
including rights to be reasonably heard in a meaningful manner. 261 It is not reasonable to deprive victims of the critical
information in the presentence report. Second, the Practioners' Group inaccurately describes the relevant history of the Victims'
Rights Amendment. It is true that the proposed constitutional amendment contained a right to be "reasonably heard," just as the
CVRA does. However, the Practitioner's Group fails to recognize that the legislative history of the amendment suggests that

_____________________

253 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(6) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005).

254 18 U.S.C. 3664.

255 Ala. Code 15-23-73 (1975) ("victim shall have the right to review a copy of the pre-sentence investigative report, subject to the applicable
federal or state confidentiality laws"); Alaska Stat. 12.55.023 (2004) (giving victim right to look at portions of sentencing report); Ariz.
Const. art. 2, 2.1 (giving victim right to review presentence report when available to the defendant); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-4425 (2004)
(giving victim right to review presentence report "except those parts excised by the court or made confidential by law"); Fla. Stat. Ann.
960.001 (2000) (giving victim right to review presentence report); Idaho Code 19-5306 (2004) (giving victim right to review presentence
report); Ind. Stat. Ann. 35-40-5-6(b) (2004) (giving victim right to read and "respond to" material contained in the presentence report); La.
Const. art. 1, 25 (giving victim "right to review and comment upon the presentence report"); Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-113 (2005) (giving
prosecutor discretion to disclose contents of presentence report to victim); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. 137.077 (2003) (presentence report may be
made available to victim); see also Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-72-304(5) (2005) (giving prosecutor discretion to allow victim or victim's family to see
presentence report).

256 See The Effect of United States v. Booker on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Hearing Before the U.S. Sentencing Comm'n (Feb. 15,
2005) (statement of Paul G. Cassell, United States Judge for the District of Utah), available at http://www.ussc.gov/hearings/ 02 15 05/cassell
testimony.pdf.

257 U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, 1 Federal Sentencing Guidelines 6A1.2 (West 2004).

258 Letter from Amy Baron-Evans & Mark Flanagan to Hon. Ricardo H. Hinojosa (Feb. 28, 2005), available at
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing law and policy/ files/pag letter.doc.

259 Id. at 2.

260 Id.

DAVID SCHOEN

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017750