HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622.jpg

2.36 MB

Extraction Summary

4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal journal article / congressional document production
File Size: 2.36 MB
Summary

This document is page 19 of a legal text (likely a law review article or legal memorandum by David Schoen) produced to the House Oversight Committee. It critiques an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo, arguing that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply before criminal charges are filed to prevent 'secondary victimization.' The text specifically cites the 'Epstein case' (Does v. United States, S.D. Fla. 2011) as a legal precedent where the court ruled that the CVRA contemplates pre-charge application.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Epstein Defendant
Mentioned in the context of 'the Epstein case' where the district court concluded that the CVRA contemplates pre-char...
David Schoen Attorney/Author
Name appears at the footer of the document, suggesting he is the author or the source of this submission to House Ove...
Sen. Jon Kyl Senator
Cited in footnote 155 and 160 regarding legislative statements on the CVRA.
Susan Estrich Author
Cited in footnote 157 for her book 'Real Rape' regarding secondary victimization.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
OLC
Office of Legal Counsel. The document critiques the OLC's memorandum regarding the application of the CVRA.
Justice Department
Mentioned as the location of federal prosecutors.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Mentioned as an example of an agency with investigators subject to CVRA rules.
Congress
Mentioned as the legislative body that intended for broad victim rights.
House Oversight Committee
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622'.

Timeline (1 events)

2011
District court conclusion in the Epstein case (Does v. United States) regarding CVRA application.
S.D. Fla.
Epstein District Court

Locations (1)

Location Context
Southern District of Florida. Cited in footnote 161 regarding the Epstein case (Does v. United States).

Relationships (1)

Epstein Legal Case Subject District Court (S.D. Fla.)
Citation of 'Does v. United States' (the Epstein case) in footnote 161.

Key Quotes (4)

"As the district court concluded in the Epstein case, this provision "surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA.""
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622.jpg
Quote #1
"OLC's failure to consider the purposes underlying the CVRA is a glaring oversight."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622.jpg
Quote #2
"Clearly, many victims can and do suffer secondary victimization during criminal investigations..."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622.jpg
Quote #3
"Congress wanted broad rights extending beyond just the prosecution of a case."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,054 characters)

Page 19 of 31
104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *85
emphasized that it conferred a "broad" [*86] right. 155 The reason for adopting such a broad right was that "too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in the executive or judiciary branch, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 156 OLC's failure to consider the purposes underlying the CVRA is a glaring oversight.
OLC never attempts to explain why the CVRA's drafters would want victims to have a right to fair treatment once criminal charges were filed but possess no such right before the filing of criminal charges. Clearly, many victims can and do suffer secondary victimization during criminal investigations, such as when sexual assault victims are treated inappropriately by law enforcement agents. 157 It would contradict the purpose of preventing victim mistreatment in the criminal justice system to artificially limit the right to fairness to the point at which charges are filed. The right to fairness logically applies at all stages of the criminal justice process.
C. OLC'S INEFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE CVRA'S COVERAGE AND VENUE PROVISIONS
At the end of its memorandum, OLC finally discusses what it identifies as the two strongest arguments for construing the CVRA as applying before charging: the coverage provision and the venue provision. OLC acknowledges, as it must, that the CVRA's coverage extends to any federal employee engaged in "the detection, investigation or prosecution of crime." 158 Such employees "shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights" afforded by the statute. 159 Notably, this duty applies to individuals not just in the Justice Department (where all federal prosecutors are located) but other agencies as well, such [*87] as environmental crimes investigators in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 160
This coverage provision would seem to answer any lingering question about whether the CVRA applies before charging. In directing that federal employees engaged in the "detection" and "investigation" of crime must respect victims' rights, Congress wanted broad rights extending beyond just the prosecution of a case. As the district court concluded in the Epstein case, this provision "surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA." 161
OLC gamely maintains, however, that Congress was simply trying to provide that federal law enforcement agents should provide rights to victims when a criminal case moves to its prosecution phase. OLC noted the uncontroversial point that law enforcement agents "often develop a relationship of trust with crime victims during the investigation that continues as they assist crime victims in negotiating active criminal proceedings." 162 OLC then asserted:
155 150 Cong. Rec. 7303 (2004) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl).
156 Id.
157 See Susan Estrich, Real Rape 50-51 (1987) (describing how a rape victim's sexual history may be used against her in court proceedings); Beloof, supra note 38, at 309-10 (collecting examples of victims' issues that arise during the investigative process); see also President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, supra note 10, at 57-62 (making recommendations for how police should treat victims during the criminal justice process).
158 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 15 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
159 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).
160 See Kyl et al., supra note 136, at 615 ("Notice should be given to the fact that it applies not just to the Department of Justice, but to all "departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime."" (citation omitted)).
161 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
162 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 15.
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document