HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017643.jpg

2.62 MB

Extraction Summary

4
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document / law review article excerpt / congressional production
File Size: 2.62 MB
Summary

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.

People (4)

Name Role Context
David Schoen Document Custodian/Attorney
Name appears in footer, indicating this document was part of his production to the House Oversight Committee.
Sara Sun Beale Professor / Reporter
Duke law professor and reporter for the Advisory Committee; articulated the drafting technique regarding CVRA.
Judge Cassell Judge / Advocate
Advocates using the general right to fairness as a springboard for victim rights.
The Author Witness / Writer
Unnamed in text but refers to themselves in first person ('I testified'); likely a legal scholar or judge writing the...

Organizations (6)

Name Type Context
Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure
Body responsible for proposing changes to criminal procedure rules.
Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
Received the report from the Advisory Committee.
Judicial Conference of the United States
Organization mentioned in footnotes related to minutes and reports.
Duke Law
Affiliation of Sara Sun Beale.
Congress
Legislative body that created the rights in the CVRA.
House Oversight Committee
Inferred recipient of the document based on the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.

Timeline (3 events)

December 2005
Advisory Committee sent a report of proposed changes to the Standing Committee.
Unknown
Advisory Committee Standing Committee
January 26, 2007
Public hearing on rule changes where the author testified.
Washington, D.C.
Advisory Committee The Author
October 24-25, 2005
Advisory Committee meeting taking up Subcommittee's proposals.
Unknown
Advisory Committee

Locations (1)

Location Context
Location where the public hearing on rule changes was held.

Relationships (2)

Sara Sun Beale Professional Advisory Committee
Beale is the committee's reporter.
David Schoen Legal/Investigative House Oversight Committee
Document produced by Schoen to the committee (Footer info).

Key Quotes (3)

"The CVRA requires fundamental changes in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017643.jpg
Quote #1
"Unfortunately, the Advisory Committee acted timidly."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017643.jpg
Quote #2
"The CVRA reflects a careful Congressional balance between the rights of the defendant, the discretion afforded to prosecution, and the new rights afforded to victims."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017643.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,441 characters)

Page 8 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *871
The full Advisory Committee took up the Subcommittee's proposals at its meeting on October 24-25, 2005. 68 It largely agreed with the Subcommittee's proposals, approving a limited set of changes to the Rules to implement the CVRA. The Advisory Committee sent a report of its proposed changes to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in December, 2005. 69 The Advisory Committee described its changes as seeking "to incorporate, but not go beyond, the rights created by the statute." 70 The rules were then circulated for nationwide public comment. 71 The Advisory Committee held a public hearing on [*872] the rule change in Washington, D.C. on January 26, 2007. I testified at the hearing, presenting this Article as my testimony. 72
III. The CVRA's Right to Fairness Requires Comprehensive Changes to Protect Victims
The CVRA requires fundamental changes in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The CVRA makes crime victims participants in the criminal justice process and commands in sweeping terms that the courts must treat victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 73 To faithfully implement that directive, it is necessary to assess each of the existing rules against a fairness standard and then make changes and additions where the Rules do not guarantee fair treatment to victims.
The Advisory Committee has made some useful progress in that direction. It should be commended for the careful drafting of its proposed changes and the thoroughness with which it explored the topic. Moreover, it is the nature of articles such as this one to highlight points of disagreement rather than points of agreement. The Advisory Committee has seen fit to adopt several of the proposals that I recommended, 74 a fact that should not be overlooked.
Unfortunately, the Advisory Committee acted timidly. Instead of reviewing all the Rules to determine whether they treated victims fairly, the Advisory Committee decided it would not venture beyond parroting specifically described rights in the CVRA. The committee's reporter, well-regarded Duke law professor Sara Sun Beale, articulated the Advisory Committee's drafting technique as simply incorporating rights created by Congress:
The most basic decision was how far beyond the statutory provisions the rules should go at this time. Although the CVRA enumerates a number of specific rights, it also contains general language stating that victims have a "right to be treated with fairness." Judge Cassell advocates using this general right to fairness as a springboard for a variety of victim rights not otherwise provided for in the CVRA.
[We] concluded that the rules should incorporate, but not go beyond, the specific statutory provisions. The CVRA reflects a careful Congressional balance between the rights of the defendant, the discretion afforded to prosecution, and the new rights afforded to victims. In light of this careful statutory balance, [we] felt that it would not be appropriate to create new victim rights not based upon the statute. Rather, [we] [*873] sought to incorporate the rights Congress did afford into the rules. In so doing, [we] attempted, to the degree possible, to use the statutory language. [We] anticipate[] that the courts will develop the
68 Judicial Conference of the United States, Minutes of the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Oct. 24-25, 2005), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Minutes/CR10-2005-min.pdf [hereinafter Advisory Committee Minutes].
69 Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules (Dec. 8, 2005), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/CR12-2005.pdf [hereinafter Advisory Committee Report].
70 Id. at 2.
71 Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil and Criminal Procedure (Aug. 2006), www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules1.html [hereinafter Proposed Amendments] (last visted Dec. 30, 2007).
72 All testimony and other comments about the proposed changes can be found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/Proposed0206-1.htm.
73 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (2006) (emphasis added).
74 See, e.g., infra notes 96-97 and accompanying text (discussing amendment to Rule 18).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017643

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document