Senator Jon Kyl proposes extensive amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to strengthen crime victims' rights

Page 77 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *969 discussed in connection with Rule 1 above, *?? Rule 60(b)(2) was revised to make clear that a victim's "representative" could assert a victim's right. C. The Last Word? Legislation to Fully Implement the CVRA Unsatisfied with the timid approach taken by the Advisory Committee on the CVRA, Senator Jon Kyl introduced legislation to comprehensively amend the federal rules on June 29, 2007. Senator Kyl explained that the Advisory Committee's amendments "do little more than reiterate limited parts of the statute." °° Agreeing with the major premise of this Article - that crime victims must be treated fairly in the criminal justice process - Senator Kyl noted: "Of particular importance, the CVRA guaranteed that crime victims would have the right to be treated with "fairness.' My proposed amendments would add to the Federal rules the changes needed to treat crime victims fairly." ®°! Senator Kyl was also concerned about delay by the Advisory Committee in moving forward with comprehensive amendments: Congress enacted the CVRA in October 2004. In the almost 3 years since then, I have waited patiently to give the federal courts the first opportunity to review the need for rule changes. At the same time, though, I have made clear my position, as one of the cosponsors of the CVRA, that Congress expected significant reforms in the Federal rules. As I explained to my colleagues at that time, the crime victims’ [*970] community in this country was looking to the CVRA to serve as a model for the states and a formula to fully protect crime victims. °°? Accordingly, Senator Kyl proposed a long string of direct amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to comprehensively protect victims’ rights. Some of the legislation that Senator Kyl proposed tracked my proposals in this Article. For example, he proposed amendments to a number of rules - including Rules 2, 10.1, © 11(b)(4), 11(c)(1), 11(c)(2), 12.1, 12.3, 15, 21(e), 32(f)(1), 32(h), 43.1, 44, 46, and 50(c) - largely tracking my proposals. But other proposed changes went well beyond those I propose here. For example, Senator Kyl proposed changing Rule 4's provision dealing with execution of arrest warrants to require reasonable efforts to give notice to victims about the initial appearance of an arrested suspect. ©°4 Along the same lines, Senator Kyl would give victims reasonable notice of any decision 605 to release a defendant at the initial appearance as well as notice of any pretrial conference. °° He also would give federal prosecutors authority to release to a victim any discovery materials that have been released to the defendant. °°” To assist non- English speaking crime victims, he proposes to give the courts authority to appoint an interpreter for the victim. °% Senator Kyl's bill would also require disclosure to the victim of any presentence report "except any portion of such report excised by the court for compelling reasons or made confidential by law." ©? And his bill would require that the victim be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any motion for a new trial is granted. °!° 599 See supra notes 117-126 and accompanying text. 600 153 Cong. Rec., $8746 (daily ed. June 29, 2007) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). 601 Jg. 602 Td. at S8747. 603 My proposed Rule 10.1 regarding notice to crime victims (which Senator Kyl largely tracked) is discussed in this Article as Rule 60(a)(1). See supra notes 505-519 and accompanying text. 604 §. 1749, 110th Cong. § 4 (2007). 605 Td. § 5, 606 Td, § 15. 607 Td. § 13. 608 Td, § 18. 609 Td. § 19. 610 Td, § 21. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017712