Relationship Details

This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol. 103) discussing the systemic underenforcement of sexual assault laws in the United States and the failure of state criminal justice systems to adequately address the issue. It includes extensive footnotes citing legal precedents and state statutes regarding prosecutorial discretion and victim rights. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, as indicated by the footer and Bates stamp.

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.

This document appears to be a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 28 of a 52-page production) included in a file by attorney David Schoen for the House Oversight Committee. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), quoting Senator Kyl and citing case law (State v. Timmendequas) to argue that victims have a due process right to be heard, particularly regarding venue transfer decisions, to minimize their inconvenience and trauma.

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 a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely written by Paul Cassell, though he is referred to in the third person in one section) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critiques the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules for acting 'timidly' by not expanding victim rights beyond the strict statutory language of the CVRA. The document contains a footer indicating it was produced by attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) to the House Oversight Committee, likely as part of an investigation into the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.

This document is an excerpt from a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on closed-circuit transmission of trials for victims and the right to be heard at sentencing for petty offenses. The text argues that the CVRA necessitates changes to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to ensure victim participation. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely used as an exhibit or reference in legal proceedings or congressional inquiries related to the Epstein case (likely regarding CVRA violations).

This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the victim's right against unreasonable delay in proceedings. It cites Senators Feinstein and Kyl, along with various state statutes, to argue that delays should not occur merely for the convenience of the court or parties. The document bears the name of David Schoen (a known attorney for Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional investigation.

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 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.

This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103), likely submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee by attorney David Schoen. The text analyzes legal underenforcement and systemic bias, specifically regarding police misconduct, sexual assault, and crimes against marginalized groups (sex workers, undocumented immigrants, LGBT individuals). It argues that professional relationships between prosecutors and police create conflicts of interest that prevent fair adjudication, citing various legal standards and academic works.

This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol. 103) submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The text analyzes the lack of federal jurisdiction overlap in sexual assault cases compared to public corruption, noting that federal law usually only applies in specific instances like human trafficking or crimes on federal property. The footnotes extensively cite the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)) and various state constitutions regarding a victim's right to confer with the prosecution, a legal issue relevant to the handling of the Epstein case.

This document is a page from a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that victims should have access to presentence reports to meaningfully participate in sentencing hearings, citing statements by Senators Feinstein and Kyl. The document appears to be an exhibit submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely in the context of the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the violation of victims' rights under the CVRA.

This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103, p. 904) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The text discusses the legal theory of 'federal redundancy' and the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine (citing Gamble v. United States), arguing that federal prosecutors serve as a check on local prosecutors in cases of police misconduct. While the text focuses on police violence and double jeopardy laws, its inclusion in this production is likely relevant to legal arguments surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement and whether federal charges could supersede state agreements.

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.

This document is Page 5 of 78 from a legal filing, specifically an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article detailing the legislative history of the Crime Victims' Rights amendment between 1996 and 1999. It outlines the efforts of Senators Kyl and Feinstein to pass a constitutional amendment ensuring rights for crime victims, noting failures in the 104th and 105th Congresses despite support from the Justice Department and President Clinton. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as evidence regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Epstein investigation.

This page is an extract from a legal brief or filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (likely related to the Epstein investigation). It cites a Minnesota Law Review article discussing the limitations of victims' rights in the U.S. compared to other jurisdictions, specifically noting that U.S. victims generally lack the power to challenge prosecutorial discretion (decisions not to prosecute). The document includes extensive footnotes citing various examples of enforcement discretion and budget limitations in contexts like tax law and marijuana enforcement.

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.

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.

A page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The document contains an excerpt from the Minnesota Law Review discussing the politics of prosecutorial discretion, specifically regarding underenforcement in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. It also includes footnotes citing various federal statutes related to sex trafficking of minors (18 U.S.C. § 1591), public corruption, and bribery.

This document is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal frameworks for appointing counsel for crime victims (specifically children and those facing potential charges) and proposes rules for victims' rights to be heard regarding a defendant's release from custody. It cites the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and various U.S. Codes regarding funding and legal authority.

This document is page 37 of a legal filing submitted to the House Oversight Committee by attorney David Schoen (indicated by the footer). The content is an excerpt from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol. 103) containing footnotes 178-187, which discuss the history of sexual assault legislation, the backlog of untested rape kits, the evolution of 'rape shield' laws, and the efficacy of specialized prosecution units for sexual crimes and prison abuse. While the text discusses general legal precedents and statistics regarding sexual assault, its submission by Schoen suggests relevance to a specific investigation, likely regarding the handling of sexual abuse cases.

This document is page 42 of 52 from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (vol. 835) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and its interaction with Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure (specifically Rule 615 and Rule 43). The text argues for explicit procedural rules to protect a victim's right to attend trials, referencing the Oklahoma City bombing trial as a failure of the previous system. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Jeffrey Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a legal file produced during congressional investigations into the handling of the Epstein case, likely regarding the violation of victims' rights under the CVRA.

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.