Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-15296House OversightOther

Proposed amendment to federal sentencing guidelines to require probation officers to gather victim information for presentence reports

The passage discusses a legislative proposal concerning victim‑rights and presentence reporting. It mentions Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein but provides no new allegations, financial flows, or misc Rule 32(c)(1)(B) currently limits restitution info to cases under MVRA. Proposed Rule 32(c)(3) would require probation officers to seek victim input for presentence reports Citations to the CVRA and

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017746
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage discusses a legislative proposal concerning victim‑rights and presentence reporting. It mentions Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein but provides no new allegations, financial flows, or misc Rule 32(c)(1)(B) currently limits restitution info to cases under MVRA. Proposed Rule 32(c)(3) would require probation officers to seek victim input for presentence reports Citations to the CVRA and

Tags

legislative-proposalvwpasentencing-guidelinespolicy-changeprobation-officer-dutieslegal-reformhouse-oversightvictim-rightscvra

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Page 32 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *888 In its current form, Rule 32(c)(1)(B) suggests that the probation officer is required to include restitution information only in a case covered by the MVRA because only then is restitution (in the language of the current rule) "required." 22° No sound reason exists [*889] for such a limitation, particularly after the enactment of the CVRA. The CVRA guarantees that victims have "the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law." *2? Even when the court is proceeding under the discretionary VWPA, without appropriate information in the presentence report, the court cannot determine whether to exercise its discretion to award restitution. Therefore, the rule should be changed to require that the presentence report contain restitution information, from which the court can determine whether to make a restitution award. (New) Rule 32(c)(3) - Probation Officer To Seek Out Victim Information The Proposal: The probation officer preparing a presentence report should be directed to determine whether a victim wishes to provide information for the report as follows: (3) Victim Information. The probation officer must determine whether any victim wishes to provide information for the presentence report. The Rationale: Under the CVRA, the victim has "the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... sentencing ... .". 72° This right clearly encompasses the victim's right to allocate, or make an oral statement at sentencing, as discussed below in connection with Rule 32(i). 73! However, the right to be "reasonably heard" also appears to include the opportunity to provide information to the probation office during preparation of the presentence report. As Senator Kyl explained, the victim's right to be heard at sentencing should be broadly construed: [*890] [The CVRA] provides victims the right to reasonably be heard at any public proceeding involving ... sentencing. This provision is intended to allow crime victims to directly address the court in person. It is not necessary for the victim to obtain the permission of either party to do so ... . When a victim invokes this right during ... sentencing proceedings, it is mtended that ... he or she be allowed to provide all three types of victim impact: the character of the victim, the impact of the crime on the victim, the victims’ family and the community, and sentencing recommendations ... . It is not the intent of the term "reasonably" in the phrase "to be reasonably heard" to provide any excuse for denying a victim the right to appear in person and directly address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. This section would fail in its intent if courts determined that written, rather than oral communication, could generally satisfy this right. On the other hand, the term "reasonably" is meant to allow for alternative methods of communicating a victim's views to the court when the victim is unable to attend the proceedings. Such circumstances might arise, for example, if the victim is incarcerated on unrelated matters at the time of the proceedings or if a victim cannot afford to travel to a courthouse. In such cases, communication by the victim to the court is permitted by other reasonable means. 777 In light of this legislative history, victims undoubtedly have a right to make an in-court statement at sentencing as part of their right "to be heard." But they also have the right to communicate in other ways with the court. At sentencing, an obvious 228 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)(B). 29 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(6) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005). 230 18 U.S.C.A. 3771 (a)(4). 231 See infra notes 273-75 and accompanying text. 2 o 2 150 Cong. Rec. $4268 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added); see also id. (statement of Sen. Feinstein). DAVID SCHOEN

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: RE: Schoen and Epstein

From: To: Subject: RE: Schoen and Epstein Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 19:09:33 +0000 Attachments: (USANYS)" < Sorry, I mean to send this to you a while ago. More of the same from him. From: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:04 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Schoen and Epstein It is literally unimaginable. From: (USANYS) < Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 22:38 To: Subject: Re: Schoen and Epstein Can you imagine moving forward with that case with David Schoen as the "quarterback" of the defense team? Yikes. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 29, 2019, at 9:06 PM, ) < > wrote: I got a hit on this as an end-of-year thing from my google alert on Epstein - I had not realized that he did a huge, crazy, absurdly self-aggrandizing interview on this!! https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.comijeffrey-epstein-consulted-atlanta-attomey-days-before-death/ I don't believe a word of his. Just unreal. From: Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 20:00 To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Schoen an

2p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00026451

0p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02541489

4p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01763941

9p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Proposal to Require Victim Input on Nolo Contendere Pleas Cited in CVRA Subcommittee Discussion

The passage outlines a procedural reform suggestion for federal criminal sentencing and notes an apparent oversight by the Advisory Committee. While it mentions Senator Feinstein, it does not provide Advocates amending Rule 11(a)(3) to require courts to consider victims' views before accepting a nol Senator Dianne Feinstein is quoted supporting broader victim rights under the Crime Victims' Right

1p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02456600

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.