Searcy
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Paletz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Prisons
|
Plaintiff vs defendant |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-06-27 | N/A | Decision in Searcy v. Paletz | D.S.C. | View |
| 2007-06-27 | N/A | Citation date for Searcy v. Paletz | D.S.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021459.jpg
This legal document analyzes the ambiguity of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) concerning when victims' rights attach, particularly before formal charges are filed. It notes that at the time of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, court precedent was sparse and divided, a situation that continued as of the writing of this report. Because the law was not clear, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the prosecutors' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing or journal article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) restrictive interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding whether victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. The text analyzes and distinguishes prior case law (Turner, Paletz, Skinner), arguing that these cases do not preclude CVRA rights during the investigation phase.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017616.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing authored by David Schoen (likely representing victims in the Epstein case), produced to the House Oversight Committee. It presents a legal argument contrasting the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) with the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that the Justice Department is obligated to recognize and inform victims as soon as an investigation opens, not just after formal charges are filed. It criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that attempted to limit these protections for victims of uncharged conduct.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058.jpg
This document appears to be page 79 of a 2014 legal analysis or law review article, included in a House Oversight Committee production (likely related to the Epstein investigation regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act). The text analyzes the 'Paletz' and 'Skinner' cases to argue that CVRA rights should apply during investigations, not just after conviction or charging. It critiques the Department of Justice's position by citing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which found that limiting CVRA rights only to post-charging scenarios is inconsistent with the statute.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014057.jpg
This document appears to be page 78 of a legal article or brief, likely authored by Paul Cassell (a lawyer for Epstein's victims), arguing for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to the filing of formal criminal charges. It explicitly criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that sought to limit these rights. The text cites various legal precedents (Turner, Searcy) to argue that victims should be treated fairly and allowed to confer with prosecutors during the investigation phase, not just after charges are filed. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation, likely into the handling of the Epstein case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity