Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-27986House OversightOther

Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules Enhancing Crime Victims' Rights to Notice and Attendance

The passage outlines suggested changes to procedural rules protecting crime victims' privacy and attendance rights. While it mentions legislative references and a Senate statement, it offers no concre Proposes Rule 17 amendments requiring court finding of relevance and victim notice before subpoenas Suggests victims have a right to attend pre‑trial depositions under Rule 15 amendment. Notes that

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017664
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines suggested changes to procedural rules protecting crime victims' privacy and attendance rights. While it mentions legislative references and a Senate statement, it offers no concre Proposes Rule 17 amendments requiring court finding of relevance and victim notice before subpoenas Suggests victims have a right to attend pre‑trial depositions under Rule 15 amendment. Notes that

Tags

court-rule-17legal-procedurecrime-victimsfederal-rules-amendmentlegal-reformprocedural-protectionhouse-oversightvictim-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 29 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *901 participant in the proceedings," 77 the same considerations demand that victims be able to attend a pretrial deposition. To be sure, crime victims (like other members of the public) will have the opportunity to hear deposition testimony when it is introduced at trial. 72° But that may be a pale substitute for actually observing a witness testify in person. 77? Victims may also be able to facilitate the truth-seeking process by watching witnesses at the deposition and alerting prosecutors or defense attorneys to any false statements that are being made. 73° Rule 15 should, therefore, be amended to ensure that crime victims have a right to attend any deposition. Rule 17 - Victims’ Right to Notice of Subpoena of Confidential Information The Proposals: I recommended amending Rule 17 to ensure that subpoenas to third parties seeking personal and confidential information about crime victims would not be [*902] abused. Initially, I proposed requiring a court determination of relevance at trial and notice to a victim as follows: Rule 17(h)(2) - Victim Information. After indictment, no record or document containing personal or confidential information about a victim may be subpoenaed without a finding by the court that the information is relevant to trial and that compliance appears to be reasonable. If the court makes such a finding, notice shall then be given to the victim, through the attorney for the government or for the victim, before the subpoena is served. On motion made promptly by the victim, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. 73! The Advisory Committee proposed more limited protections for such information as follows: Rule 17(c)(3) - Subpoena for Personal or Confidential Information About Victim. After a complaint, indictment, or information is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may not be served on a third party without a court order, which may be granted ex parte. Before entering the order, the court may require that notice be given to the victim so that the victim has an opportunity to move to quash or modify the subpoena. 737 The Advisory Committee also proposed the following note to accompany the rule change: Subdivision(c)(3). This amendment implements the Crime Victims! Rights Act, codified at /8 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), which states that victims have a right to respect for their "dignity and privacy." The rule provides a protective mechanism when the defense subpoenas a third party to provide personal or confidential information about a victim. Third party subpoenas raise special concerns because a third party may not assert the victim's interests, and the victim may be unaware of the subpoena. Accordingly, the amendment requires judicial approval before service of a subpoena seeking personal or confidential information about a victim from a third party. The amendment also provides a mechanism for notifying the victim, and makes it clear that a victim may move to quash or modify the subpoena under Rule 17(c)(2) on the grounds that it is unreasonable or oppressive. The amendment applies only to subpoenas served after a complaint, indictment, or information has been filed. It has no application to grand [*903] jury subpoenas. When the grand jury seeks the production of personal or confidential information, grand jury secrecy affords substantial protection for the victim's privacy and dignity interests. 227 150 Cong. Rec. $10911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). 228 See United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 659 (8th Cir. 1996). 229 See generally Douglas E. Beloof & Paul G. Cassell, The Victim's Right to Attend the Trial: The Reascendant National Consensus, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 481, 534-38 (2005) (discussing reasons victims need to hear testimony in person). 230 See id. at 544-45 (advancing this argument about victims attending trials). 231 Cassell, Proposed Amendments, supra note 4, at 875. 232 Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 17(c)(3), at 7. 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.