Victims claim U.S. Attorney’s Office hid Epstein non‑prosecution agreement, raising CVRA violations

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 69 Epstein spent much of the jail term on “work release” to his luxurious office.* The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not tell Epstein’s victims about the nonprosecution agreement until well after it had taken effect. To the contrary, even after the nonprosecution agreement had been signed, the Office continued to tell the victims that the case was still “under investigation” and that they should be “patien[t].”*° When the victims learned of the agreement, two of them (Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two) filed suit in federal court under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, arguing that the prosecutors had violated their CVRA right to confer as well as their right to be treated fairly.*’ The victims contended that prosecutors should have conferred with them about the nonprosecution agreement before it became final. In response, the U.S. Attorney’s Office argued primarily that it was under no obligation to extend the victims any rights under the CVRA. It was the Government’s blunt position that “CVRA rights do not attach in the absence of federal criminal charges filed by a federal prosecutor.”*8 In short, the Government argued it was not required to confer in any way with the victims, or even treat them fairly, because the CVRA was not yet in play. The issue is thus squarely framed: Is the Government correct in its assertion that it has no CVRA obligations in cases like the Epstein case where federal prosecutors never lodged federal charges against a suspect? In view of the CVRA’s prominence, resolution of this issue may shed important light on the nature of crime victims’ enactments and the breadth of the role that crime victims should have in the criminal justice process. II. THE CVRA’S APPLICATION BEFORE FORMAL CHARGES ARE FILED To analyze the issue of whether the CVRA extends nghts to crime victims before prosecutors have formally filed charges, it is useful to look at the CVRA’s purposes, language, and judicial interpretations. This Part looks at each of these three issues in turn. 4 > See Michele Dargan, Feds Say They Treated Epstein Victims Fairly, PaLm BEAcH DatLy NEws (Apr. 8, 2011, 7:23 PM), http://goo.gl/TGDed; Conchita Samoff, Billionaire Pedophile Goes Free, DAILY BEAST (July 20, 2010, 7:05 PM), http://goo.g1/MSTi17. 4° See Jane Doe Motion, supra note 40, at 14, 16 (intemal quotation marks and citations omitted). 47 See Emergency Victim’s Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 at 2, Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM). 48 United States’ Response, supra note 40, at 7. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014048