Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-16700House OversightOther

Proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure requiring victim input before bench trial waivers

The passage discusses a procedural rule change for federal courts, focusing on victim participation in bench‑trial waiver decisions. It mentions no high‑ranking officials, financial transactions, or f Proposes deleting the current narrow definition of “victim” in Rule 32(a). Suggests courts must hear victim perspectives before approving non‑jury trials. Cites Supreme Court precedent that defendant

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017744
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage discusses a procedural rule change for federal courts, focusing on victim participation in bench‑trial waiver decisions. It mentions no high‑ranking officials, financial transactions, or f Proposes deleting the current narrow definition of “victim” in Rule 32(a). Suggests courts must hear victim perspectives before approving non‑jury trials. Cites Supreme Court precedent that defendant

Tags

bench-trialfederal-ruleslegal-reformcourt-procedureprocedural-changehouse-oversightvictim-rights

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Page 30 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *885 the duty of the trial court [in considering whether to approve a jury trial waiver] is not to be discharged as a mere matter of rote, but with sound and advised discretion, with an eye to avoid unreasonable or undue departures from that mode of trial or from any of the essential elements thereof, and with a caution increasing in degree as the offenses dealt with increase in gravity. 716 This is a "serious and weighty responsibility." 7!9 [*886] To discharge that serious and weighty responsibility, the trial court should receive as much information as possible. The victim is often well situated to provide information about how the public will view a non-jury trial. The proposed rule change takes the modest step of requiring the court to hear the victim before approving any non-jury trial, a step that is consistent with the CVRA's command that victims be treated with fairness. Importantly, this change would not interfere with defendants’ rights. The Supreme Court has squarely held that the defendant lacks any constitutional right to unilaterally elect a bench trial. 72° Of course, in some circumstances, despite a victim's objection, a non-jury trial nonetheless will be appropriate. Moreover, in extreme cases, the defendant may have a right to a non- jury trial where pretrial publicity has pervasively tainted the jury pool. 72! Nothing in the proposed rule change would interfere with a court's right to approve a bench trial in such circumstances, so long as the court considers the victim's perspective as part of the approval process. Rule 32(a) - Deleting Old Definition of "Victim" The Proposal: The definition of "victim" currently contained in Rule 32 should be stricken as follows: Rule 32. Sentencing and Judgment (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply under this rule: (1) "Crime of violence or sexual abuse" means: (A) a crime that involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another's person or property; or (B) a crime under /8 U.S.C. 2241-2248 or 2251-2257. [*887] (2) "Victim" means an individual against whom the defendant committed an offense for which the court will impose sentence. The Rationale: The old definition of victim in Rule 32 is now too narrow, as it is limited to crimes of violence or sexual abuse. The CVRA, in contrast, includes all victims within its protections. In the proposed new rules, "victim" would be defined in Rule 1. 77? Accordingly, the narrower definition found here can simply be eliminated. The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules is well 218 Patton, 281 U.S. at 312-13. 219 United States v. Saadya, 750 F.2d 1419, 1421 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation omitted). 20 Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965) (finding that waiver of jury trial may be conditioned on consent of prosecutor); cf. Kurland, supra note 217, at 340-46 (urging that the rules be amended to create such a right, but not considering in any way the victim's interests involved). I See Singer, 380 U.S. at 37-38 (leaving this question open). 222 See supra notes 120-27 and accompanying text. DAVID SCHOEN

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone241-2248
Phone251-2257

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: RE: Schoen and Epstein

From: To: Subject: RE: Schoen and Epstein Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 19:09:33 +0000 Attachments: (USANYS)" < Sorry, I mean to send this to you a while ago. More of the same from him. From: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:04 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Schoen and Epstein It is literally unimaginable. From: (USANYS) < Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 22:38 To: Subject: Re: Schoen and Epstein Can you imagine moving forward with that case with David Schoen as the "quarterback" of the defense team? Yikes. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 29, 2019, at 9:06 PM, ) < > wrote: I got a hit on this as an end-of-year thing from my google alert on Epstein - I had not realized that he did a huge, crazy, absurdly self-aggrandizing interview on this!! https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.comijeffrey-epstein-consulted-atlanta-attomey-days-before-death/ I don't believe a word of his. Just unreal. From: Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 20:00 To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Schoen an

2p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00026451

0p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02541489

4p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01763941

9p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Proposal to Require Victim Input on Nolo Contendere Pleas Cited in CVRA Subcommittee Discussion

The passage outlines a procedural reform suggestion for federal criminal sentencing and notes an apparent oversight by the Advisory Committee. While it mentions Senator Feinstein, it does not provide Advocates amending Rule 11(a)(3) to require courts to consider victims' views before accepting a nol Senator Dianne Feinstein is quoted supporting broader victim rights under the Crime Victims' Right

1p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02456600

1p

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.