Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-25034House OversightOther

Advisory Committee’s Limited Adoption of CVRA Victim‑Rights Proposals

The passage outlines procedural history and modest disagreements over rule‑making for victim rights. It contains no concrete allegations, financial flows, or misconduct involving high‑level officials, Advisory Committee met Oct 24‑25 2005 and issued limited changes to Federal Rules of Criminal Proced Public hearing on the rule change held Jan 26 2007 in Washington, D.C.; author testified. Committe

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017643
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines procedural history and modest disagreements over rule‑making for victim rights. It contains no concrete allegations, financial flows, or misconduct involving high‑level officials, Advisory Committee met Oct 24‑25 2005 and issued limited changes to Federal Rules of Criminal Proced Public hearing on the rule change held Jan 26 2007 in Washington, D.C.; author testified. Committe

Tags

policy-advocacyrulemakinglegislative-oversightcriminal-procedurelegal-reformhouse-oversightjudicial-conferencevictim-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 8 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *871 The full Advisory Committee took up the Subcommittee's proposals at its meeting on October 24-25, 2005. © It largely agreed with the Subcommittee's proposals, approving a limited set of changes to the Rules to implement the CVRA. The Advisory Committee sent a report of its proposed changes to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in December, 2005. ® The Advisory Committee described its changes as seeking "to incorporate, but not go beyond, the rights created by the statute." 7° The rules were then circulated for nationwide public comment. 7! The Advisory Committee held a public hearing on [*872] the rule change in Washington, D.C. on January 26, 2007. I testified at the hearing, presenting this Article as my testimony. 7 Ill. The CVRA's Right to Fairness Requires Comprehensive Changes to Protect Victims The CVRA requires fundamental changes in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The CVRA makes crime victims participants in the criminal justice process and commands in sweeping terms that the courts must treat victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 73 To faithfully implement that directive, it is necessary to assess each of the existing rules against a fairness standard and then make changes and additions where the Rules do not guarantee fair treatment to victims. The Advisory Committee has made some useful progress in that direction. It should be commended for the careful drafting of its proposed changes and the thoroughness with which it explored the topic. Moreover, it is the nature of articles such as this one to highlight points of disagreement rather than points of agreement. The Advisory Committee has seen fit to adopt several of the proposals that I recommended, 7 a fact that should not be overlooked. Unfortunately, the Advisory Committee acted timidly. Instead of reviewing all the Rules to determine whether they treated victims fairly, the Advisory Committee decided it would not venture beyond parroting specifically described rights in the CVRA. The committee's reporter, well-regarded Duke law professor Sara Sun Beale, articulated the Advisory Committee's drafting technique as simply incorporating rights created by Congress: The most basic decision was how far beyond the statutory provisions the rules should go at this time. Although the CVRA enumerates a number of specific rights, it also contains general language stating that victims have a "right to be treated with fairness." Judge Cassell advocates using this general right to fairness as a springboard for a variety of victim rights not otherwise provided for in the CVRA. [We] concluded that the rules should incorporate, but not go beyond, the specific statutory provisions. The CVRA reflects a careful Congressional balance between the rights of the defendant, the discretion afforded to prosecution, and the new rights afforded to victims. In light of this careful statutory balance, [we] felt that it would not be appropriate to create new victim rights not based upon the statute. Rather, [we] [*873] sought to incorporate the rights Congress did afford into the rules. In so doing, [we] attempted, to the degree possible, to use the statutory language. [We] anticipate[] that the courts will develop the 8 Judicial Conference of the United States, Minutes of the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Oct. 24-25, 2005), available at hitp://www.uscourts. gov/rules/Minutes/CR10-2005-min. pdf [hereinafter Advisory Committee Minutes]. 6 Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules (Dec. 8, 2005), available at hittp://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/CR12-2005.pdf [hereinafter Advisory Committee Report]. 7 Td. at 2. 71 Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil and Criminal Procedure (Aug. 2006), www.uscourts.gov/ rules/newrules1.html [hereinafter Proposed Amendments] (last visted Dec. 30, 2007). All testimony and other comments about the proposed changes can be found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/Proposed0206-1.him. 3 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) (2006) (emphasis added). ™ See, e.g., infra notes 96-97 and accompanying text (discussing amendment to Rule 18). DAVID SCHOEN

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainwww.uscourts.gov

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.