Proposed CVRA test applied to Jeffrey Epstein case outlines victim rights framework

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 93 victims to those who have been “directly and proximately harmed.”!*? Finally, the formulation requires some federal officer or employee to evaluate the evidence and reach the conclusion that a federal offense has been committed that harmed the person in question. This determination responds to the observation by the District Court for the Eastern District of New York that the CVRA “cannot be read to include the victims of uncharged crimes that the government has not even contemplated.”'°? At the same time, such a formulation obviously does not require the filing of formal criminal charges, or even the preparation of formal criminal charges. Instead, all that is required is for the Department to recognize that a person is a putative victim of a federal offense, just as all that is required for the mailing of a target letter to a subpoenaed suspected criminal, is recognition that he is a putative defendant in a federal case. B. APPLYING THE TEST TO THE EPSTEIN CASE To illustrate how the test would operate, it is useful to examine the facts of the Epstein case. Applying the proposed test to that case produces straightforward answers, which suggests that the test would be workable in practice. From 2001 to 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than thirty minor girls in his mansion, including Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two.'”* Initially, of course, his acts of abuse were secret, unknown to law enforcement. During that period of time, the victims would not have had rights under the CVRA. In 2006, Epstein’s acts of abuse came to the attention of the Palm Beach Police Department, which began investigating the case.'°° At this point, once again, the victims would not have had rights under the proposed CVRA test. The CVRA extends rights in the federal criminal justice process. A state investigation does not trigger the CVRA (although it may trigger certain state law protections, as discussed below).!° At some point in 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department asked the FBI to investigate Epstein on federal sex offenses, such as using a means of 192 See id. § 3771(e). 193 United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 194 As above, see supra notes 34-41 and accompanying text, this part of the Article draws on the factual allegations made by the victims in this case—allegations that Epstein has not intervened to dispute. See Jane Doe Motion, supra note 40, at 3-23. 195 See Probable Cause Affidavit, Palm Beach Police Department: Police Case No. 05- 368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at http://goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text as well as infra Part IV.D. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014072