Event Details

This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) analyzing the history of federal victims' rights legislation. It details the failure of the 1990 Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, attributing its ineffectiveness to poor codification (Title 42 vs Title 18) and its omission from West Publishing's legal guides, citing the Oklahoma City bombing case as a key example. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp and the name of David Schoen, Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, suggesting it was part of a legal production regarding the CVRA, a statute central to the controversy surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.

This document is a page from a legal text (likely a law journal article or brief by David Schoen) submitted to the House Oversight Committee. It critiques a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum which argued that Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) rights only attach after formal criminal proceedings are initiated. The text argues this position is 'unpersuasive' and 'disingenuous' because the DOJ routinely identifies victims earlier, such as during grand jury investigations or under the VRRA of 1990.

This document is page 77 of a legal analysis or report from 2014, included in House Oversight Committee records (Bates stamped). It details the legal obligations of the Justice Department under the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on the requirement to identify and notify victims of available services and investigation status before formal charges are filed. It references the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance.

This document is a page from a legal brief or journal article submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the legislative history and intent of the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA), contrasting it with the 1990 Victims' Rights and Restitution Act. It highlights the Congressional goal to ensure victims are treated with fairness, dignity, and are active participants in the legal system, citing various Senators and legal precedents.

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.