Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-15332House OversightOther

Proposal to Amend Federal Rules for Victim Access to Presentence Reports

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017752
Pages
2
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage discusses procedural reforms for victim disclosure of presentence reports, offering no concrete leads involving high‑profile individuals, financial flows, or misconduct. It lacks actionabl Three disclosure models: complete, selective, and through prosecutors. Proposes victim‑initiated request for report access via prosecutor. Suggests amending Rule 32(f), (h), (i) to allow objections w

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

sentencing-guidelinespolicy-recommendationcriminal-procedurelegal-reformfederal-rule-amendmenthouse-oversightvictim-rights
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Page 38 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, #899 related parts of the presentence report; without such access they are unable to effectively make their sentencing recommendation. In view of that legal landscape, there are three ways in which the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure might deal with disclosure of the presentence reports to victims: (1) Complete Disclosure. The rules could direct full disclosure of the presentence report to the victim. While no statute bars this approach, legitimate policy objections might be raised. Some reports may contain sensitive private information about the defendant such as results of psychiatric examinations, prior history of drug use, or childhood sexual abuse. Some reports may also reveal confidential law enforcement information that should not be widely circulated. Victims may not always need access rt, 269 to these parts of the report. While a number of states give victims unfettered right to access the presentence repo a more limited approach seems appropriate in the federal system. [*900] (2) Selective Disclosure. The rules could direct that the probation office redact any presentence report to remove confidential information and then provide the redacted report to the victim. This approach, too, is problematic; it would require considerable work by busy probation officers to prepare an additional document - a redacted report - presumably only after consulting with the attorneys on both sides of the case about what might be viewed as confidential. (3) Disclosure through Prosecutors. The simplest solution to the competing concerns is to disclose the report to victims through an intermediary: the prosecutor. The prosecutor would serve as the filter for confidential information and assist the victim by highlighting critical parts of the report. Opponents might object that this approach would burden prosecutors, who are no less 270 busy than probation officers. But the CVRA already gives victims the right to "confer" with prosecutors, and presumably they will confer regarding the important topic of sentencing. Moreover, many U.S. Attorney's Offices already have Victim- Witness Coordinators who communicate with victims regarding impact statements. The CVRA also authorizes increased funding of $ 22 million for the Victim-Witness Assistance Programs in U.S. Attorney's Offices, presumably enabling those offices to expand their victim services. 77! It might be burdensome to require that prosecutors disclose presentence reports to victims in all cases, even when they are not interested in such disclosure. Accordingly, disclosure of the report should be required only upon request of a victim. For all those reasons, the Commission should amend the rules to give requesting victims access to presentence reports through the prosecutor. In addition, some of the aspects of preparing and disclosing presentence reports are covered in Chapter 6.A of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. *’? The Manual falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules should [*901] coordinate with the Commission to ensure that any changes in the Criminal Rules are consistent with the provisions of the Manual. Rule 32(f), (h), (i) - Victim Opportunity To Object to Presentence Report The Proposal: Rule 32(f), (h), and (i) should be amended to allow the victim to object to the presentence report as follows: (f) Objecting to the Report. (1) Time To Object. Within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, the parties must state in writing any objections, including objections to material information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the report. The attorney for the government or for the victim shall raise for the victim any reasonable objection by the victim to the presentence report. 269 See supra note 255. 270 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(5) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005). 271 See 118 Stat. 2260, 2264 (2004). 272 See supra note 257 and accompanying text. DAVID SCHOEN

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Law Review Article Proposes Expansive Victim‑Rights Amendments to Federal Criminal Rules

The document is an academic commentary urging broader implementation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It discusses legislative history, proposed rule Calls for the Advisory Committee to adopt broader victim‑fairness language in Rules 2, 11, 12, 15, 3 Highlights Senate statements (Kyl, Feinstein) emphasizing victims' rights and fairness. Notes that

156p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Law Review Article Discusses Enforcement Redundancy and Under‑enforcement in U.S. Criminal Justice

The passage is a scholarly analysis of prosecutorial discretion, under‑enforcement, and the role of federal‑state redundancy. It contains no specific allegations, transactions, dates, or names of indi Identifies ‘enforcement redundancy’ (federal‑state overlap, private prosecution, judicial review) as Notes that federal prosecutors often step in when state prosecutors decline to charge, especially

111p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Law review article proposes extensive amendments to Federal Criminal Rules to implement Crime Victims' Rights Act

The document outlines policy proposals for rule changes but contains no concrete allegations, financial flows, or misconduct involving specific powerful actors. It is a scholarly discussion, offering Identifies gaps in current Federal Rules where victims are barely mentioned. Cites legislative history of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and related statutes. Proposes specific rule amendments

103p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules to Require Victim Input on Case Transfers

The passage outlines procedural proposals for victim participation in case transfer decisions. It does not name any influential actors, financial flows, or misconduct, offering only low‑value context Suggests amending Rule 18, 20, and 21 to require victim consultation before transferring prosecution Calls for written consent from defendants and approval from U.S. attorneys in both districts. Mand

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Scholarly Article Argues Crime Victims' Rights Act Applies Pre‑Charging, Citing Jeffrey Epstein Case

The passage outlines a legal argument that the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply before criminal charges are filed, using the high‑profile Jeffrey Epstein case as an illustration. The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a 2011 memo limiting CVRA rights to post‑charging sta Sen. Jon Kyl publicly objected to the OLC memo, asserting CVRA rights attach during investigations

63p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Academic discussion of victim‑rights statutes cites the Jeffrey Epstein pre‑charging case

The passage references the Jeffrey Epstein case only to illustrate a legal question about when victim‑rights under the CVRA attach. It does not provide new factual allegations, financial flows, or dir The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) was intended to give victims independent standing in criminal p Debate exists over whether CVRA rights arise only after formal charges are filed or earlier in the

2p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.