HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014050.jpg

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 71 to consider in crafting a plea. Similarly, allowing victims to participate early in the process avoids retraumatizing victims. Again, as the Epstein case usefully illustrates, it may be extremely difficult for victims to discover after the fact that potential criminal charges against a criminal who has abused them have been secretly bargained away. Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two, for example, were outraged when they discovered prosecutors had entered into an agreement blocking any prosecution of sex offenses Epstein committed against them—and all without telling them.™* In short, the purposes animating the CVRA all suggest that the Act was meant to, and should, extend rights to crime victims before formal charges are filed. B. THE CVRA’S PLAIN LANGUAGE While the general purposes of the CVRA_ support a_ broad interpretation of the Act, it is important to examine whether those purposes have been expressed in the Act’s language. Without a linkage to the Act’s text, the general purpose might not provide a sound basis for interpretation.°+ But the CVRA’s plain language makes clear that Congress intended for the law to provide at least some rights to crime victims throughout the criminal justice process, even before the filing of criminal charges. According to its text, the CVRA provides eight specifically enumerated rights for crime victims and an additional right to be reasonably notified of these rights.°° Some of these rights presuppose the formal filing of criminal charges. For instance, the CVRA extends to victims the “night to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding.”*° That particular right obviously does not apply before charges are filed, as no “court proceedings” exist before a defendant is charged. But the CVRA also promises crime victims rights that are not specifically tied to court proceedings. Perhaps most expansively, the CVRA guarantees victims the “right to be treated with faimmess and with 3 Without disclosing confidential attorney-client communications, this fact is readily apparent from victims’ filings in the Epstein case. See, e.g., Jane Doe Motion, supra note 40, at 17 (stating that the victims relied on the U.S. Attorney’s Office representatives “to their detriment|,|” that if they knew the true facts, “they would have taken steps to object” to the plea agreement, and that they believed criminal prosecution to be “extremely important”). 4 See ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING Law: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 56 (2012). *5 18 U.S.C. §3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights), id. § 3771(c)(1) (requiring government officers use “their best efforts” to notify victims of their rights). %© Td. § 3771 (a)(2). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014050