Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-15332House OversightOther

Proposal to Amend Federal Rules for Victim Access to Presentence Reports

The passage discusses procedural reforms for victim disclosure of presentence reports, offering no concrete leads involving high‑profile individuals, financial flows, or misconduct. It lacks actionabl Three disclosure models: complete, selective, and through prosecutors. Proposes victim‑initiated request for report access via prosecutor. Suggests amending Rule 32(f), (h), (i) to allow objections w

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017752
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage discusses procedural reforms for victim disclosure of presentence reports, offering no concrete leads involving high‑profile individuals, financial flows, or misconduct. It lacks actionabl Three disclosure models: complete, selective, and through prosecutors. Proposes victim‑initiated request for report access via prosecutor. Suggests amending Rule 32(f), (h), (i) to allow objections w

Tags

sentencing-guidelinespolicy-recommendationcriminal-procedurelegal-reformfederal-rule-amendmenthouse-oversightvictim-rights

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 38 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, #899 related parts of the presentence report; without such access they are unable to effectively make their sentencing recommendation. In view of that legal landscape, there are three ways in which the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure might deal with disclosure of the presentence reports to victims: (1) Complete Disclosure. The rules could direct full disclosure of the presentence report to the victim. While no statute bars this approach, legitimate policy objections might be raised. Some reports may contain sensitive private information about the defendant such as results of psychiatric examinations, prior history of drug use, or childhood sexual abuse. Some reports may also reveal confidential law enforcement information that should not be widely circulated. Victims may not always need access rt, 269 to these parts of the report. While a number of states give victims unfettered right to access the presentence repo a more limited approach seems appropriate in the federal system. [*900] (2) Selective Disclosure. The rules could direct that the probation office redact any presentence report to remove confidential information and then provide the redacted report to the victim. This approach, too, is problematic; it would require considerable work by busy probation officers to prepare an additional document - a redacted report - presumably only after consulting with the attorneys on both sides of the case about what might be viewed as confidential. (3) Disclosure through Prosecutors. The simplest solution to the competing concerns is to disclose the report to victims through an intermediary: the prosecutor. The prosecutor would serve as the filter for confidential information and assist the victim by highlighting critical parts of the report. Opponents might object that this approach would burden prosecutors, who are no less 270 busy than probation officers. But the CVRA already gives victims the right to "confer" with prosecutors, and presumably they will confer regarding the important topic of sentencing. Moreover, many U.S. Attorney's Offices already have Victim- Witness Coordinators who communicate with victims regarding impact statements. The CVRA also authorizes increased funding of $ 22 million for the Victim-Witness Assistance Programs in U.S. Attorney's Offices, presumably enabling those offices to expand their victim services. 77! It might be burdensome to require that prosecutors disclose presentence reports to victims in all cases, even when they are not interested in such disclosure. Accordingly, disclosure of the report should be required only upon request of a victim. For all those reasons, the Commission should amend the rules to give requesting victims access to presentence reports through the prosecutor. In addition, some of the aspects of preparing and disclosing presentence reports are covered in Chapter 6.A of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. *’? The Manual falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules should [*901] coordinate with the Commission to ensure that any changes in the Criminal Rules are consistent with the provisions of the Manual. Rule 32(f), (h), (i) - Victim Opportunity To Object to Presentence Report The Proposal: Rule 32(f), (h), and (i) should be amended to allow the victim to object to the presentence report as follows: (f) Objecting to the Report. (1) Time To Object. Within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, the parties must state in writing any objections, including objections to material information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the report. The attorney for the government or for the victim shall raise for the victim any reasonable objection by the victim to the presentence report. 269 See supra note 255. 270 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(5) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005). 271 See 118 Stat. 2260, 2264 (2004). 272 See supra note 257 and accompanying text. 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.