Relationship Details

This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely written by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing amendments to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to explicitly include fairness to victims. It critiques the Advisory Committee's refusal to adopt these amendments. The document bears the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to an investigation, likely involving Epstein's plea deal and victims' rights violations.

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.

This document is a page from a legal publication (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by attorney David Schoen. It analyzes state laws (specifically Hawaii, Colorado, Missouri, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Idaho) regarding crime victims' rights to notification and consultation prior to the filing of formal charges or plea agreements. The text serves as legal precedent or comparative analysis, likely relevant to arguments concerning the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Epstein case.

This document is page 14 of a legal filing or journal article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) restrictive interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding whether victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. The text analyzes and distinguishes prior case law (Turner, Paletz, Skinner), arguing that these cases do not preclude CVRA rights during the investigation phase.

This document is a page from a 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review article (page 27 of 52 in the submission) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the constitutional rights of victims and the public to attend criminal trials in the local community (vicinage) under Article III, the First Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. The text argues that victims have a compelling interest in observing proceedings and should have the right to be heard regarding venue transfer decisions under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).

This document appears to be Page 10 of a legal filing or article (Excerpt from 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59) submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically citing the 'In re Dean' (BP Products) case to argue that victims have rights to confer with the government before charges are formally filed or plea deals are reached. While Epstein is not named on this page, the legal argument mirrors the controversy surrounding the failure to notify victims during Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement.

This document is a page from a Minnesota Law Review article (Vol 103) discussing the complexities of federal versus state jurisdiction in cases of police violence and 'excessive use of force.' It analyzes the high 'mens rea' standard required for federal prosecution and compares the US system to those of Germany, Canada, and Australia. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional inquiry, possibly related to arguments about federal jurisdiction or deaths in custody.

This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 45 of a larger 52-page submission) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing 'Rule 44.1' regarding the discretionary appointment of counsel for victims. It argues that while the CVRA does not mandate counsel, federal courts possess the inherent authority to appoint it in the interests of justice. The document includes extensive footnotes citing relevant case law and concludes with the name of attorney David Schoen (a known Epstein attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a submission to Congress regarding the Epstein investigation.

This document appears to be a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (indicated by the Bates stamp). The text discusses legal precedents and statutes (specifically the CVRA and state laws in Utah, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas) regarding a prosecutor's ethical obligation to inform the court of a victim's request to be heard during plea bargain proceedings. This is likely part of an argument regarding the violation of victims' rights in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement.