HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014054.jpg

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 75 Perhaps the most extensive discussion of this issue has come from the Epstein case discussed earlier.’”? Overruling the Government’s argument that the CVRA only applies after the formal filing of charges, Does v. United States held that “the statutory language clearly contemplates pre- charge proceedings.””* The court in Does explained that “[cJourt proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-complaint or post- indictment proceedings, but can also include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which can take place before a formal charge.”” The court also noted that the CVRA’s “requirement that officials engaged in ‘detection [or] investigation’ [of crimes] afford victims the rights enumerated in subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA.”®° Finally, the court in Does noted that “[i]f the CVRA’s rights may be enforced before a prosecution is underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute, those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment formally charges the defendant with the crime.”*! In sum, the relevant case law unanimously agrees that the CVRA extends nights to crime victims before charges have been filed. II. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S UNPERSUASIVE POSITION Despite the CVRA’s broad remedial purposes, its expansive language referring to investigations, and the unanimous case law extending rights to victims prior to defendants being charged, the OLC released a memorandum in 2011 concluding that CVRA rights attach only “from the time that criminal proceedings are initiated (by complaint, information, or indictment).”*? OLC’s analysis is unpersuasive. Although OLC’s opinion Dean for support; but (as just explained above) Dean held exactly the opposite. Similarly, Petersen cites other cases involving the right to confer after charges have been filed. Jd. But none of these cases actually presented the issue of the CVRA’s application to pre-indictment situations, since charges had already been filed in each of these cases. See, e.g., In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008). ™ Toes v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). 78 Td. at 1341. ? Td. 8° Td. at 1342. 81 Td. Recently, the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court found that, if the victims could prove the factual allegations they have made, then they would be entitled to relief, including potentially the relief of invalidating the nonprosecution agreement that Epstein obtained from the Government. Does v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, 2013 WL 3089046, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2013). 82 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 1. Although the opinion is dated December 17, 2010, it was publicly released on May 20, 2011. See Letter from Jon Kyl, supra note 3. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014054