HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014040.jpg

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 61 INTRODUCTION In recent years, federal and state enactments have given crime victims extensive rights to participate in criminal cases. Many of these rights apply only after the filing of criminal charges, such as the victim’s right to be heard during court proceedings. A crime victim’s right to deliver an impact statement at sentencing, for instance, can only be exercised after a prosecutor has filed charges against a defendant and obtained a conviction. Other rights, however, can apply even before the formal filing of charges. As one example, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA)! extends to federal crime victims the nght to “confer” with prosecutors. But can victims exercise this right before charges have been filed? This question has tremendous practical importance. In many cases, prosecutors negotiate pleas well before any charges are ever drafted. If crime victims’ rights enactments do not extend rights to victims until the formal filing of charges, then crime victims can be effectively excluded from the plea bargaining process. Yet the exclusion of victims in early stages of a criminal case affects more than just the content of a plea deal. Crime victims will also lose other important rights in the process if the formal filing of charges is the necessary trigger for those nghts. If, for example, prosecutors work out a nonprosecution agreement with an offender, they need not notify his victims of what they are doing or of the fact that potential charges will never be filed. The issue of pre-charging rights has most prominently surfaced in connection with federal cases. In 2010, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) weighed in on the issue and released a legal opinion arguing that victims of federal crimes have no CVRA rights during a federal criminal investigation.” The Justice Department took the position that rights under the CVRA do not apply until prosecutors formally initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint, information, or indictment. The Department claims to find support for that limiting interpretation of the statute in its plain language and legislative history. Shortly after the Department released its opinion, one of the CVRA’s congressional sponsors, then-Senator Jon Kyl, sent a letter to Attorney General Enc Holder strenuously objecting to the Department’s conclusions. Senator Kyl directly stated his view that “[w]hen Congress enacted the ' Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260, 2261-65 (2004) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (2012) and 42 U.S.C. § 10603(d)-(e) (2006)). ? The Availability of Crime Victims’ Rights Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 35 Op. O.L.C. 1 (Dec. 17, 2010) [hereinafter OLC CVRA Rights Memo], available at http://goo.gl/fHmCL4. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014040