HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017631.jpg

2.33 MB

Extraction Summary

2
People
7
Organizations
7
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document / law review excerpt / house oversight submission
File Size: 2.33 MB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal publication (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by attorney David Schoen. It analyzes state laws (specifically Hawaii, Colorado, Missouri, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Idaho) regarding crime victims' rights to notification and consultation prior to the filing of formal charges or plea agreements. The text serves as legal precedent or comparative analysis, likely relevant to arguments concerning the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Epstein case.

People (2)

Name Role Context
David Schoen Attorney/Submitter
Name appears in the footer, indicating he likely submitted this document to the House Oversight Committee.
Lee Defendant
Mentioned in case citation 'State v. Lee' in footnote 231.

Organizations (7)

Name Type Context
Hawaii Legislature
Mentioned regarding definition of 'major developments' in criminal cases.
Massachusetts Legislature
Mentioned regarding victim services provisions.
Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy
New Jersey agency mentioned in text and footnote 237.
N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety
Cited in footnote 237.
House Oversight Committee
Implied recipient based on Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017631'.
LexisNexis
Cited in footnote 232.
West
Cited in footnotes 236 and 237.

Locations (7)

Location Context
State laws discussed regarding victim notification.
State laws discussed regarding victim rights.
State laws discussed regarding victim rights.
State laws discussed regarding victim notification.
State laws discussed regarding victim services.
State laws discussed regarding plea agreement consultation.
State laws cited in footnotes 228-231.

Relationships (1)

David Schoen Submitter/Recipient House Oversight Committee
Footer containing 'DAVID SCHOEN' and Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.

Key Quotes (3)

"victims in the State of Hawaii are entitled to a notification right and a possible consultation right long before formal charges are filed."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017631.jpg
Quote #1
"Colorado guarantees rights at "all critical stages of the criminal justice process[,]" which includes both the filing of charges and the decision to not file charges."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017631.jpg
Quote #2
"victims have the right... to be informed by the prosecuting attorney of the status of the case... and of any final decision by the prosecuting attorney not to file charges."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017631.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,240 characters)

Page 28 of 31
104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *99
advise the victim about any plea negotiations. 233 Interestingly, however, the Hawaii legislature defined "major developments"
as "arrest or release of the suspect by the police, case deferral by the police, referral to the prosecutor by the police, rejection of
the case by the prosecutor, preliminary hearing date, grand jury date, trial and sentencing dates, and the disposition of the case."
234 The usage of the term "case" and the plain language of the provisions demonstrate that victims in the State of Hawaii are
entitled to a notification right and a possible consultation right long before formal charges are filed.
[*100] Other states also expressly extend rights before the filing of charges. Colorado guarantees rights at "all critical stages
of the criminal justice process[,]" which includes both the filing of charges and the decision to not file charges. 235 In Missouri,
victims have the right:
on charged cases or submitted cases where no charge decision has yet been made, to be informed by the prosecuting attorney of
the status of the case and of the availability [of different forms of compensation and assistance] and of any final decision by the
prosecuting attorney not to file charges. 236
In New Jersey, officials typically send a letter informing the victim "that the case has been referred to the prosecutors' office
and explains and offers the services available from the country office of victim-witness advocacy." 237 Subsequent letters to
the victim ensure that the victim has notice of a series of decisions long before indictment, 238 and the office actively solicits
information in order to "help the prosecutor's office decide whether or not to prosecute a case." 239 Along a similar vein, the
Massachusetts legislature included a provision that makes it clear that nothing should prevent a prosecutor from providing
victim services to persons injured by the commission of a crime, even though a complaint or indictment has not yet been
issued. 240
In addition to extending rights before the filing of charges, several states require consultation before the prosecutor reaches a
plea agreement with the defendant. For example, Idaho's statute provides that a victim must be given an opportunity "to
communicate with the prosecution in criminal or juvenile offenses, and be advised of any proposed plea agreement by the
prosecuting attorney prior to entering into a plea agreement in criminal or juvenile offenses involving crimes of violence, sex
_________________________________________________________________
228 Under Arizona law, the "rights and duties that are established by this chapter arise on the arrest or formal charging of the person or
persons who are alleged to be responsible for a criminal offence against a victim." Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4402(A) (2010) (emphasis
added).
229 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4419(A) (2010).
230 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4402.01(A).
231 It appears, however, that the criminal proceeding may have been parallel to the civil forfeiture proceeding. See State v. Lee, 245 P.3d 919,
923-24 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
232 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 801D-4(a)(1) (LexisNexis 2007).
233 See id.
234 Id. § 801D-2.
235 Colo. Const. art. II, § 16a; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4.1-302(1) (2013). But see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4.1-302.5(1)(f) (2012) (limiting
conferral right, in particular, to later stages of a criminal proceeding). Despite these limitations on the conferral right, victims retain the ability
to be heard at any hearing involving a plea. See id. § 24-4.1-302.5.
236 Mo. Ann. Stat. § 595.209(10) (West 2011).
237 Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy, N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, A Crime Victim's Guide to the Criminal Justice System 4 (2d ed.
1997); see also N.J. Const. art. I, § 22. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (2012), with N.J. Stat. Ann. § 52:4B-36 (West 2009). In addition to the
rights similar to the federal legislation, New Jersey law provides for the right "to be advised of case progress and final disposition and to
confer with the prosecutor's representative so that the victim may be kept adequately informed ... ." Id. § 52:4B-36(k).
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017631

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document