Utah Law Review
OrganizationRelationship Network
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017671.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen, who later served as an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. The text is a legal analysis of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, arguing for strict adherence to the 'Nixon factors' (specificity, relevancy, and admissibility) when issuing subpoenas to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' The document includes extensive legal footnotes citing various precedents and was produced as part of a House Oversight Committee investigation (likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017668.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article found in the files of attorney David Schoen (produced for House Oversight). The text analyzes legal procedures regarding 'ex parte' subpoenas, specifically criticizing proposals that would allow defense attorneys to subpoena victim records without notice, using the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case and Pennsylvania rape counselor statutes as examples of how third parties handle confidential victim information. It argues that current or proposed rules regarding the protection of defense 'strategy' are haphazard and often detrimental to victim privacy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017666.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted as an exhibit by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal issues surrounding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), specifically criticizing the lack of notice given to victims when their confidential records (such as VA medical records) are subpoenaed by defense counsel. It cites a specific instance where a defense attorney used surprise access to psychiatric records to pressure a prosecutor, and references communications involving Rod Rosenstein regarding these procedural rules.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017665.jpg
This document is page 30 of a 78-page submission, containing an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored or submitted by David Schoen. It discusses legal theory regarding Rule 17 subpoenas, specifically arguing for better protection of victim privacy. The text uses the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case as a primary example of the flaws in existing subpoena rules, detailing how defense attorneys accessed her school and medical records without the family's knowledge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017664.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 29 of 78 in the evidence file) discussing amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding victims' rights. It specifically details proposals for Rule 17 to protect victims from abusive subpoenas of their confidential information by defense attorneys, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The document bears the name 'David Schoen' and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of the congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case (likely related to the non-prosecution agreement and victims' rights violations).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017663.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017663) submitted by attorney David Schoen (known for representing Jeffrey Epstein). The text is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and arguing that victims should have the right to attend pretrial depositions under Rule 15, drawing parallels to the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants. It cites various legal precedents to support the argument that excluding victims from such proceedings is unfair and unauthorized.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017659.jpg
This document is an extract from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, page 894, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen during a House Oversight investigation. The text provides a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1, criticizing an Advisory Committee proposal that would allow courts to order the disclosure of a victim's address to a defendant without adequately protecting the victim's safety. It argues that current proposals violate the CVRA's mandate to protect victims from the accused.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017658.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 23 of 78 in the file) discussing Rule 12.1 and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It analyzes the legal requirements for disclosing a victim witness's address and telephone number to the defense, specifically in the context of an alibi defense, and highlights the tension between defendants' discovery rights and victims' safety/privacy. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017657.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 22 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing legal procedure rules (Rule 12.1 and 12.3) concerning the disclosure of witness information in criminal trials. It specifically focuses on the balance between a defendant's right to information and the protection of victims' addresses and telephone numbers. The document was produced by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, as indicated by the footer and Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017655.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 11(c)(2) regarding plea agreements. It argues that prosecutors should be required to inform the court if a victim objects to a plea deal, citing Senator Feinstein and the case State v. Casey. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was produced as part of a congressional investigation, likely regarding the handling of victims' rights in the Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017654.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) discussing Rule 11 and advocating for the inclusion of victims' views during plea negotiations. The text argues that prosecutors should be required to notify victims and consider their views on plea deals, noting that the Advisory Committee did not recommend this change at the time. The document bears the name David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of an evidentiary submission regarding the handling of victims' rights, possibly in relation to the Epstein non-prosecution agreement investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017650.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen (who later served as Jeffrey Epstein's attorney). The text critiques the Advisory Committee's failure to include 'victim representatives' in Proposed Rule 60, arguing it contradicts the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The document is stamped as evidence for the House Oversight Committee, likely relevant to the investigation into the handling of victims' rights in the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017649.jpg
This document is page 14 of a 78-page excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely authored by Paul Cassell, discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues for amending Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (specifically Rule 1 and Rule 11) to align with the CVRA, quoting Senators Feinstein and Kyl on the Act's intent to reform the legal culture surrounding victims' rights. The document bears a footer for attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of the congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case (where the CVRA was a central legal issue).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017648.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, produced as part of a House Oversight investigation (likely related to the Epstein case given David Schoen's name at the footer). The text analyzes the history of the Advisory Committee's amendments to Federal Criminal Rules and critiques the lack of support for crime victims' rights, specifically the failure to appoint counsel for indigent victims or clarify their role in plea processes under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It highlights the disparity between defendants, who are guaranteed counsel, and victims, who are not.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017642.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 to integrate victim rights. It details the author's submission of twenty-eight changes to the Advisory Committee in 2005 and the subsequent limited adoption of these changes by a subcommittee chaired by Judge James Jones. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017641.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article detailing the legislative history of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It describes the transition from seeking a constitutional amendment to passing a federal statute in 2004, highlighting the roles of Senators Kyl and Feinstein and President Bush. The document appears to be a file produced to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of attorney David Schoen, suggesting its relevance to legal arguments concerning victims' rights violations, likely in the context of the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017638.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article titled 'The Crime Victims' Rights Movement.' It details the history of the movement, specifically the 1982 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, which recommended that victims be notified of proceedings and allowed to submit impact statements. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney known for representing Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was submitted as evidence or research in a congressional inquiry, likely regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014044.jpg
This document is page 65 of a 2014 law review article detailing the history of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It explains that in April 2004, advocates shifted focus from a constitutional amendment to federal legislation due to the difficulty of obtaining a supermajority. The text discusses the limitations of the 1990 Victims' Rights and Restitution Act and cites various legal scholars and Senators (Kyl, Leahy, Feinstein) regarding the legislative history. This document appears in the House Oversight collection likely as background material regarding the legal framework relevant to the Epstein case's non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014043.jpg
This document is a page from a legal academic text (specifically 'Vol. 104' likely by Paul Cassell) bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. It discusses the history of the Crime Victims' Rights movement, specifically the push for a U.S. Constitutional amendment following the success of state-level bills of rights. It details a 1996 Rose Garden ceremony attended by President Bill Clinton in support of such an amendment. The text appears to be part of the legislative or legal background materials often associated with Paul Cassell's representation of Epstein victims regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity