| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Passing of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) | United States | View |
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.
This document appears to be a page from a law review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in a House Oversight Committee production regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victims' rights should apply during the investigative stage (pre-charging) to prevent 'secondary victimization.' This legal argument is central to the controversy surrounding the Epstein non-prosecution agreement, where victims were not notified during the federal investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity