Discussion of Victim Rights Under the CVRA and OLC Interpretation

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 85 More importantly, extending the nght in this fashion will not be unduly burdensome for federal prosecutors. After the OLC memorandum was made public, the Department amended the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance to require prosecutors to make reasonable efforts toward a goal of providing victims with a meaningful opportunity to offer their views before plea agreements are formally reached.'** “In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has been brought, Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court.”'*° Thus, Department policy already extends pre-charging rights to victims. The CVRA should be understood as having the same scope. OLC also notes that the CVRA right “to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy” is a right that could apply before charges are filed.'!°° Indeed, OLC is forced to concede (as district courts have recognized) that the “right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy may apply with great force during an investigation, before any charging instrument has been filed.”'*! OLC nonetheless maintains that the right to fairness only applies after charges have been filed. OLC relies on the canon of statutory construction noscitur a sociis, meaning that words are known by their companions,'? for its interpretation of the CVRA. OLC argues that because the other seven enumerated nights are limited to post-charging situations, the eighth nght should be as well. Of course, this argument assumes that OLC’s construction of the other seven rights is correct—a point very much in dispute.’ If, for example, the right to confer applies before charges are filed, then presumably noscitur a sociis would cut the other way—the right to fairness should likewise be construed as applying before charges are filed. Moreover, OLC omits from its discussion of the fairness provision any assessment of the CVRA’s purposes. In construing a statute, a court must consider the “purpose and context” of the statute.°* In describing the fairness provision, Senator Kyl emphasized that it conferred a “broad” 48 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES, supra note 52, at 41-42. Td. at 41. 5° OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 10 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8)). >! Td. (quoting United States v. BP Products North America Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at *11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). % Id. at 11. 3 See supra Part IIL.A. 4 Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325, 1331 (2011). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014064