Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17419House OversightOther

Legal Analysis of Pre‑Charging Victims' Rights Under the CVRA

The passage is a scholarly discussion of how the Crime Victims' Rights Act may apply before criminal charges are filed. It contains no specific allegations, names, transactions, or actionable leads in Proposes a test for when CVRA rights attach based on substantial evidence of harm. Cites a district court case (United States v. Rubin) discussing logical limits of pre‑charging right Notes DOJ inter

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017625
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a scholarly discussion of how the Crime Victims' Rights Act may apply before criminal charges are filed. It contains no specific allegations, names, transactions, or actionable leads in Proposes a test for when CVRA rights attach based on substantial evidence of harm. Cites a district court case (United States v. Rubin) discussing logical limits of pre‑charging right Notes DOJ inter

Tags

criminal-procedurelegal-analysishouse-oversightcvravictims-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 22 of 31 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *90 instance, has noted that if there are any doubts about how to construe the CVRA, this venue provision "sweeps them away." !8! Once again, the language that Congress used leads inexorably to the conclusion that the CVRA extends rights to victims before the filing of criminal charges. IV. When Pre-charging Rights Attach Under the CVRA The zeal with which OLC argues against applying CVRA rights before charging raises the question of why it protests so much. Although OLC never articulated this concern, perhaps OLC worried that pre-charging rights would be difficult to administer. Such concerns should evaporate with a workable construction of when pre-charging rights attach. In this Part, we propose such a construction, suggesting that CVRA rights should attach when substantial evidence exists that a specific person has been directly and proximately harmed as the result of a federal crime. This approach appears to already be the method that the Department is taking, as [*91] it has extended many rights to victims before the formal filing of criminal charges as a matter of internal policy. !8? This approach appears to be workable, as a number of states extend rights to victims during the investigative process. 1° A. A TEST FOR DETERMINING WHEN RIGHTS ATTACH As explained in the earlier Parts of this Article, the CVRA clearly envisions that crime victims would have rights in the criminal justice process before the return of indictments or the filing of criminal complaints. The question then as to how much earlier in the process crime victims have rights naturally arises. Does the CVRA apply one second after a federal crime has been committed? Or does it apply at some later point during an investigation? This issue was nicely framed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in a securities fraud case. In the first indictment underlying the case, the charged crime did not include various victims. A later superseding indictment broadened the charges to include those missing individuals. When they brought a suit under the CVRA, the court noted that "quite understandably, movants perceive their victimization as having begun long before the government got around to filing the superseding indictment." '84 The court, however, explained that there must be "logical limits" to crime victims’ rights before the filing of charges. '®> The court noted: For example, the realm of cases in which the CVRA might apply despite no prosecution being "underway,' cannot be read to include the victims of uncharged crimes that the government has not even contemplated. It is impossible to expect the government, much less a court, to notify crime victims of their rights if the government has not verified to at least an elementary degree that a crime has actually taken place, given that a corresponding investigation is at a nascent or theoretical stage. 186 The logical limits that the CVRA envisions could come from how the Justice Department interacts with criminals during the investigation of a crime. Crime victims’ rights advocates are fond of saying that victims "only want to be treated like criminals" - that is, they simply want to have the same kinds of rights as criminals receive, such as the right to be notified [*92] of court hearings and to attend those hearings. !87 So it is instructive to notice that the Justice Department policy is to extend certain rights to suspected criminals during certain points in the investigative process. That policy might provide guidance on when crime victims’ rights would attach. 8! Kyl et al., supra note 19, at 594. 82 See, e.g., Attorney General Guidelines, supra note 52, at 41-42 (discussing the right to confer regarding plea bargains). 83 See infra Part III.D. 84 United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 85 Td. 86 Td. 87 See, e.g., Cassell, supra note 15, at 1376-85 (describing the rationale underpinning state victims' rights statutes). 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.