HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017633.jpg

Page 30 of 31 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *102 In other words, while few state judiciaries have addressed the precise timing of state crime victims’ rights, those that have addressed the question have typically found that the rights do extend to pre-charging situations. Despite the relative dearth of state court cases, it is worth noting that most state statutes unequivocally provide for notification rights early in the criminal process. 75! For example, the Illinois statute imposes a limited duty on law enforcement agencies to keep victims mformed of the status of an investigation until the accused is apprehended or the agency discontinues the investigation. 7°? Similarly, law enforcement agencies in Iowa must keep the victim apprised of the investigation "until the alleged assailant is apprehended or the investigation is closed." 7°? Michigan's statute requires law enforcement to provide information within a mere twenty-four hours of contact between the agency and the victim. 74 In sum, while state law on crime victims’ rights before charging is not fully developed, what law exists tends to support the position that crime victims deserve rights before the formal filing of charges. This law fits the long-standing trend in states toward expanding protections for crime [*103] victims. °° The decision by state legislators to extend notification or conferral rights to crime victims demonstrates an express recognition that crime victims' meaningful participation in the criminal justice process may involve granting those victims rights before indictment. Conclusion Crime victims have important rights at stake in the criminal justice process, even before prosecutors formally file criminal charges. It is hardly surprising, therefore, to find that a federal law that Congress in fact designed to create "broad and encompassing" rights for victims protects victims during a criminal investigation. As this Article has explained, interpreting the CVRA to cover crime victims during the pre-charging phase of a case is consistent with the statute's purposes, text, legislative history, and interpretive case law. And state criminal justice systems also appear to be moving in that direction. The Justice Department's contrary interpretation seems unlikely to prevail when challenged. The CVRA signals a paradigm shift in the way that crime victims are to be treated, at least within the federal criminal justice system. Before enactment of the law, federal investigators and prosecutors might have been able to keep victims at arm's length, refusing to confer with them about the case and otherwise ignoring or even mistreating them during the process. But those days are over. The CVRA promises victims that they now have the right to confer with prosecutors and the right to be treated fairly while their cases are investigated. It is time for the Department of Justice to recognize and embrace that new reality. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 249 See Ex parte Littlefield, 540 S.E.2d 81, 85 (S.C. 2000). 250 See Kimberly J. Winbush, Annotation, Persons or Entities Entitled to Restitution as "Victim" Under State Criminal Restitution Statute, 92 A.L.R. 5th 35, 35 (2001) (recounting cases in which unnamed victims were entitled to restitution). 21 See, e.g., Minn. Stat. Ann. § 611A.0315(a) (West 2009) (requiring a prosecutor to "make every reasonable effort to notify a victim of domestic assault ... or harassment that the prosecutor has decided to decline prosecution of the case" but providing the right to participate in proceedings to circumstances in which the offender has been charged). 252 See 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 120/4.5 (2008). 253 Towa Code Ann. § 915.13(1)(f) (West 2003). 24 See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 780.753 (West 2007). Michigan's conferral right is particularly ambiguous, because the notification requirement imposed upon the prosecuting attorney contains a time limitation (after arraignment), but the legislature did not include an express time limitation on the conferral right. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 780.756(3) (West 2007) (requiring the victim have the opportunity to consult prior to “any negotiation that may result in a dismissal, plea or sentence bargain, or pretrial diversion"); see also A/fiss. Code Ann. § 99-43-7(1) (2007) (¢mposing a requirement on law enforcement officials to notify a victim within seventy-two hours). 255 See Jeffrey A. Parness et al., Monetary Recoveries for State Crime Victims, 58 Clev. St. I. Rev. 819, 850 (2010); Tobolowsky, supra note 221, at 59 (describing a "significant expansion of victim rights to be consulted by the prosecutor and heard by the court"). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017633