Relationship Details

This document is page 41 of a 42-page legal text, specifically from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103), containing footnotes 226 through 238. The text references various legal studies, statutes, and articles concerning prosecutorial discretion, domestic violence laws, political influence on sentencing, and the independence of prosecutors in the US and abroad (Australia, Ireland, Canada). The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, as indicated by the footer and Bates stamp.

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.

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.

This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103) produced by attorney David Schoen for the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016529). The text discusses the legal theory of 'Federalism Safeguards on Prosecutorial Discretion,' specifically analyzing how the U.S. system allows federal prosecutors to override or 'second-guess' state prosecutors' decisions not to prosecute (declination decisions), contrasting this with models in Canada, Germany, and Australia. The footnotes discuss historical racial inequities in the U.S. justice system and EU directives on crime victims' rights.

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.

This document is a page from a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) stamped by the House Oversight Committee and bearing David Schoen's name. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) narrow interpretation that victim rights only attach after charges are filed. It contends that victims should have rights during plea negotiations and pre-charging stages, citing Department of Justice guidelines and the statutory purpose.

This document is page 4 of 52 from a production to the House Oversight Committee, stamped with the name David Schoen. The content is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the history of the victims' rights movement, specifically the 1982 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime and subsequent state constitutional amendments (highlighting Arizona). The text analyzes the legal shift towards protecting victims' rights to be present and heard during criminal proceedings.

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.

This document is a page from a 2018 Minnesota Law Review article by Darryl K. Brown titled 'Criminal Enforcement Redundancy: Oversight of Decisions Not to Prosecute.' The text discusses the legal theory behind underenforcement of criminal law, specifically citing failures to prosecute sexual assaults and racially motivated crimes. While the text does not mention Epstein, the document bears the footer 'DAVID SCHOEN' (an attorney associated with Epstein) and a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016510', indicating it was part of an evidentiary production to the House Oversight Committee, likely as legal research regarding the controversial non-prosecution agreement Epstein received.

This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 874) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critically analyzes the 'Advisory Committee's' narrow interpretation of the Act, contrasting it with the broad legislative intent expressed by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to ensure victims are treated with fairness and due process. The document appears to be part of a production to the House Oversight Committee from the files of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein, likely relevant to arguments regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.

This document is page 36 of 42 from a legal filing or research file belonging to David Schoen (attorney), specifically an excerpt from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103, p. 844). The text consists of footnotes (163-177) discussing federal jurisdiction (Travel Act, honest services fraud), discrepancies in sexual assault reporting statistics between the FBI and CDC, and criticism of law enforcement clearance rates for sexual crimes, including specific references to the LAPD and LA Sheriff's Department. The document appears to be part of a larger collection produced to the House Oversight Committee.