Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-23710House OversightOther

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Victim Rights in Criminal Dismissal Motions

The passage outlines procedural debates within a congressional subcommittee about victim participation in dismissal hearings. It mentions statutes and court rules but does not identify specific high‑p References 18 U.S.C. § 377(d)(6) protecting Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion. Debates whether victims should be heard in public vs. non‑public dismissal proceedings. Cites proposed Rule 60

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017695
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines procedural debates within a congressional subcommittee about victim participation in dismissal hearings. It mentions statutes and court rules but does not identify specific high‑p References 18 U.S.C. § 377(d)(6) protecting Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion. Debates whether victims should be heard in public vs. non‑public dismissal proceedings. Cites proposed Rule 60

Tags

procedural-oversightcriminal-procedurelegal-reformhouse-oversightvictim-rightscongressional-oversight

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 60 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *945 In light of the statutory statement in /8 U.S.C. § 377/(d)(6) that nothing in the CVRA "shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General," as well as the separation of powers issues raised by judicial review of the government's decision to terminate a prosecution, the Subcommittee was not persuaded that the rule should be amended to require the court to consider the victim's views on dismissal. When there is no public court proceeding, the victim's views will be taken into account through the right to confer with the government under /8 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). 47! The Advisory Committee's opening premise is clear enough - victims do indeed have "great interest" in whether charges are dismissed. But after this promising start, the Committee's logic is hard to track. The Advisory Committee seems to be of the view that, in situations where a court considers a motion to dismiss at a public proceeding, the victim would be heard. *7* Yet the proposed Rule the Committee cites for this proposition - proposed Rule 60 +73 - is actually drafted so narrowly that the victim would have no right to be heard on such a motion. 474 In situations where the court considered a motion to dismiss without a public proceeding, the Advisory Committee takes the view that the CVRA does not "explicitly address" the subject. This view assumes, of course, that the victim's right to fairness does not come into play when the prosecution moves to drop previously filed charges. This assumption is incorrect. Rule 48 already requires leave of court for a dismissal. In determining whether to grant leave, current case law requires the court to consider whether dismissal is "clearly contrary to manifest public interest." +7> The existing caselaw requires that the impact on a victim be considered in addressing a motion to dismiss. A dismissal is "clearly contrary to the public interest" if the prosecutor appears to be motivated by animus toward the victim. 47° Under the command of the CVRA, the victim thus must be treated with fairness when the dismissal motion is addressed, as my proposal provides. [*946] When the government files a motion to dismiss criminal charges involving a specific victim, the only way to protect that victim's right to be treated fairly is to consider the victim's views on the dismissal. +77 To treat a person with "fairness" is conventionally understood as treating them "justly" and "equitably.". 478 A victim is not treated justly and equitably if her views are never before the court. The Advisory Committee also alludes vaguely to "separation of powers issues raised by judicial review of the government's decision to terminate a prosecution." Here the Advisory Committee may be stepping out of line and questioning the Supreme Court. In 1944, the Court itself added the requirement to Rule 48 that prosecutors obtain leave of court before dismissing any indictment. *7? Thus, if there are separation of powers "issues" about judicial review of dismissals, they have existed for more than half a century by virtue of specific Supreme Court action. 471 CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra note 66, at 20. 472 Td. ("When there is a public proceeding, the victim's right not to be excluded, and to be reasonably heard is provided for in Rule [60]."). 473 Tn the subcommittee draft, the rule cited is actually numbered Rule 43.1. See CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra note 66, at 20. Later, without any substantive change, Rule 43.1 was renumbered as Rule 60. 474 See Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 60, at 15-20 (giving victims a right to be heard only as to proceedings concerning "release, plea, or sentencing") (discussed at infra notes 524-539 and accompanying text). 475, United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (Sth Cir. 1975). 476 In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 787 (3d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629-30 (Sth Cir. 1981). 417 Accord United States v. Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1272 (D. Utah 2006). 478 Black's Law Dictionary 633 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. 2004) (defining the adjective "fair"). 479 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 48 advisory committee's note recounting the history of the 1944 adoption. 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.