Utah Law Review
OrganizationRelationship Network
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017713.jpg
This document is the final page (78 of 78) of a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the legislative landscape of crime victims' rights, specifically mentioning Senator Kyl's bill and the potential need for a Constitutional amendment. It argues that Congress will likely intervene if the Advisory Committee fails to reform the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to protect victims. The document is stamped as a House Oversight exhibit (017713) and lists the name David Schoen at the bottom.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 76 of 78 in the specific file) analyzing changes to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 21, 32, and 60) regarding victims' rights and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critiques the Advisory Committee for not going far enough to ensure victims have a right to be heard during case transfer decisions and sentencing. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen in the footer and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a legal file or submission related to the investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, specifically regarding victims' rights violations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding victims' rights (CVRA). It details changes to Rules 1, 5, 12.1, 12.3, and 17 proposed by the Advisory Committee in 2007, specifically focusing on victim representation, protection during detention hearings, and subpoena notifications. The document bears the name of David Schoen, Epstein's attorney, and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of legal materials submitted to Congress regarding the handling of the Epstein case and victims' rights statutes.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017708.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and criticizing the NACDL's stance on cross-examining victims. It argues against giving defendants the right to cross-examine victims regarding their status, citing potential trauma and lack of legal precedent. The document bears the name "David Schoen" (Epstein's former attorney) and a "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT" Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as evidence or discovery material during a congressional investigation into the Epstein case, possibly regarding the non-prosecution agreement and violations of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017707.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 72 of 78 in the production) bearing the name of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein. The text presents a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victim status and rights should apply even to crimes that have not yet been charged, citing Senator Kyl's legislative intent. It criticizes the NACDL's proposal for fact-finding hearings to determine victim status and argues against the Advisory Committee's limitations on victims' rights in proposed rules. The document appears to be part of an evidentiary submission to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to the investigation into the handling of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement and the violation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017706.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 71 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that the Advisory Committee's proposed rules improperly limit the venue for asserting victims' rights to cases where prosecution is already underway, potentially failing to protect victims during the investigation phase (pre-charge) when rights to fairness and dignity might be violated by federal agents. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of an investigation file, likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704.jpg
This document is page 69 of 78 from a House Oversight Committee file (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704) associated with attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing 'Rule 60. Victim's Rights,' specifically regarding enforcement, limitations on relief, and the inability to request a new trial based on rights violations. The text includes a discussion section criticizing the Advisory Committee for deviating from the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in ways that reduce victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017702.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to legal rules regarding a victim's right to be heard in court proceedings. It specifically critiques the 'Advisory Committee' for having too narrow a scope for when victims can be heard (bail, plea, sentencing) versus a broader approach advocated by the author (likely Paul Cassell). The document was produced by attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) to the House Oversight Committee, likely as part of research or evidence regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017701.jpg
This document is page 66 of 78 from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on the necessity of providing notice to victims regarding court proceedings and the funding allocated to the DOJ for notification systems. The text argues that failure to notify victims of proceedings renders their rights useless and discusses proposed rules for how courts should handle situations where a victim was not notified.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017700.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 65 of 78) submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It argues legally and ethically for the inclusion of specific victim notification requirements in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referencing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text critiques the Advisory Committee for failing to incorporate a rule requiring victims be notified of their rights, drawing parallels to Miranda rights for defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017698.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It argues for rules allowing closed-circuit transmission of proceedings for victims (citing the Oklahoma City bombing case) and mandating victim notification. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional inquiry, likely related to the handling of victims' rights in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017697.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal filing, appearing to be an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It discusses proposed amendments to Federal Rules (specifically Rule 53) to allow closed-circuit transmission of proceedings for victims and critiques the Advisory Committee for failing to adopt these changes. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017695.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (pages 945-946) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It analyzes the legal obligations of courts and prosecutors to consider a victim's views when dismissing charges, arguing that victims must be treated with fairness and their views heard. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee bates stamp, suggesting it was used as legal research or evidence regarding the application of the CVRA (likely in relation to Epstein's controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in files produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal arguments regarding the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 60 and 48) specifically concerning the rights of victims to be heard during release hearings and case dismissals. The text critiques the Advisory Committee's approach as an 'empty gesture' and advocates for stronger requirements for courts to consider victims' views.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017693.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 58 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the legal rights of crime victims, specifically the appointment of counsel and the right to be heard regarding a defendant's release. It cites the case *United States v. Stamper* and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The document bears the name David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as evidence or background material in a congressional investigation, likely related to the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case given Schoen's involvement as Epstein's lawyer.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017691.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article included in a House Oversight file associated with attorney David Schoen. The text analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that legislative history and judicial precedent (specifically United States v. Kenna) guarantee victims the right to speak orally at sentencing, rather than just submitting written statements. It cites Senators Kyl and Feinstein extensively regarding the congressional intent behind the Act.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017689.jpg
This document is page 54 of 78 from a submission to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of Epstein's attorney, David Schoen. The content is a reproduction of a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on victim impact statements, sentencing guidelines, and the split between different Circuit courts regarding notice requirements for upward departures in sentencing. This legal context is highly relevant to the Epstein case, as the violation of CVRA rights (failure to notify victims of the plea deal) was a central point of contention in the scrutiny of his Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017688.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 53 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims should have the right to be heard on disputed sentencing issues and criticizes the Advisory Committee for not explicitly granting this right. The document was likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee as part of an investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017687.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely submitted as an exhibit in a House Oversight investigation) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims should have independent access to presentence reports and criticizes the Advisory Committee's view that prosecutors should control the flow of information to victims. The document bears the name of David Schoen, a known attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting this legal argument was used to advocate for victims' rights or, paradoxically, was part of the defense's legal research files regarding CVRA interpretations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017685.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, signed or submitted by attorney David Schoen, which excerpts a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims have a broad right to be heard during sentencing proceedings, including the right to review presentence reports and make sentencing recommendations regarding Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It cites legislative history from Senators Kyl and Feinstein to support the argument that victims should be able to provide information influencing the sentence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017682.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 21 and Rule 23). The text argues that victims should have a say in decisions regarding venue transfers and waivers of jury trials. The document originates from the files of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) as part of a House Oversight investigation, indicated by the footer stamps.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 46 of 78 in the exhibit) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681). The text analyzes the legal rights of crime victims to attend trials and have input on venue transfers, citing Supreme Court precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It specifically discusses the New Jersey case *State v. Timmendequas* as an example of prioritizing victims' convenience by importing a jury rather than moving the trial location.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017678.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 18 and 20 regarding venue transfer and victim notification. It details the Advisory Committee's acceptance of changes to Rule 18 but rejection of changes to Rule 20 based on prosecutorial discretion. The document bears a 'David Schoen' footer and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a document production related to the congressional investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding victims' rights violations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675). It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Jencks Act and Rule 16, specifically arguing that criminal defendants do not have a right to pre-trial discovery of government witness names (including victims) in order to prevent witness tampering and intimidation. The text cites numerous federal cases to support the argument that witness lists are generally protected from early disclosure.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017672.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various case precedents (such as State v. Percy and Brady v. Maryland) to argue that criminal defendants do not have a general constitutional right to discovery, particularly regarding the private mental health records of victims. The text emphasizes that 'mere hope' of finding favorable evidence is insufficient for a subpoena.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity