Relationship Details

This document is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), detailing specific rights afforded to victims, such as the right to be heard and the right to restitution, and argues that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must be amended to reflect these statutory rights. The text cites Senators Kyl and Feinstein and references the Oklahoma City bombing case as a catalyst for the legislation.

This document is page 69 of 78 from a House Oversight Committee file (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704) associated with attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing 'Rule 60. Victim's Rights,' specifically regarding enforcement, limitations on relief, and the inability to request a new trial based on rights violations. The text includes a discussion section criticizing the Advisory Committee for deviating from the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in ways that reduce victims' rights.

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.

This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen, appearing to be part of a House Oversight investigation. It contains an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The text argues that probation officers should be required to seek out victim information for presentence reports and quotes Senator Kyl to support the argument that victims have a broad right to be heard in person during sentencing.

This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the inherent power of courts to appoint counsel for indigent victims. It cites various legal precedents (such as Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co.) to argue that victims require legal representation to ensure a fair process, as neither prosecutors nor defendants prioritize victim rights. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen in the footer and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted by Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) as part of congressional inquiries or legal arguments regarding victim representation.

This document is a page from a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) arguing that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) applies to the pre-charging phase of criminal investigations. It criticizes the Department of Justice's restrictive interpretation of the law and cites various state statutes (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan) as evidence of a legal trend toward early victim notification. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was used as evidence or legal argument in a congressional investigation, likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the failure to notify victims.

This document is a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various case precedents (such as State v. Percy and Brady v. Maryland) to argue that criminal defendants do not have a general constitutional right to discovery, particularly regarding the private mental health records of victims. The text emphasizes that 'mere hope' of finding favorable evidence is insufficient for a subpoena.