Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-22835House OversightOther

Proposed Rule Change Requires Prosecutors to Notify Victims and Consider Their Views on Plea Agreements

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017733
Pages
2
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines a legal proposal to expand victims' rights in plea negotiations, citing statutes and scholarly commentary. It does not name any specific powerful individuals, agencies, or financi Rule 11(c)(1) would obligate prosecutors to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of Victims would be allowed to present their views directly to the court before a plea is accepted. T

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

plea-bargainingcriminal-procedurelegal-reformprocedural-changehouse-oversightvictims-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 19 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *867 provide the judge with as much information as possible. The court is under no obligation to accept a plea proposed by the 155 parties. '°4 After hearing from the victim about the plea, the court can determine what weight to give to the victim's views. To mplement the victim's right to be heard regarding a plea, the proposed rule change requires the court to directly address any victim present in court. This is consistent with the CVRA's legislative history that explains that "this provision is intended to allow crime victims to directly address the court in person." !°° The language of the proposed rule is lifted from an earlier paragraph in Rule 11, which requires the court to "address the defendant personally in open court" “before accepting a plea of guilty." '°7 Victims should be treated even-handedly. It may be important for the judge to address victims directly because many victims will lack the assistance of counsel. As novices in legal proceedings, victims may be uncertain about exactly when in the process they should present their views. By addressing victims, the court will eliminate that uncertainty and ensure that the victim's right to be heard is vindicated. [*868] Rule 11(c)(1) - Prosecution To Consider Victims' Views on Pleas The Proposal: The prosecution should be required to consider the victims' views in developing any proposed plea arrangement as follows: (1) In General. An attorney for the government and the defendant's attorney, or the defendant when proceeding pro se, may discuss and reach a plea agreement. The court must not participate in these discussions. The attorney for the government shall make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider the victims’ views about, any proposed plea negotiations. If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the government will ... . The Rationale: The proposed change requires prosecutors to make reasonable efforts to notify victims about possible plea bargains and to consider the victim's views regarding those pleas. This requirement is taken essentially verbatim from the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, which direct prosecutors to "make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims 153 See, e.g., Conn. Const. art. 1, 8 (giving victim right to be heard and to object to plea agreement); Mo. Const. art. 1, 32 (giving victim right to be heard at plea hearing); Utah Const. art. I, 28(1)(b) (giving victim the "right to be heard at important criminal justice hearings related to the victim"); Ala. Code 15-23-71 (2000) (giving victim right to be present at plea hearing and requiring prosecutor to confer with victim about plea); Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-4423 (2001) (giving victim right to be present and heard at plea hearing and requiring prosecutor to confer with victim about plea); Afinn. Stat. Ann. 6114.03 (West 2003) (giving victim right to be heard at plea hearing); Miss. Code Ann. 99-43-33 (2000) (giving victim right to make statement at plea hearing); N.H. Rev. Stat. 2]-M:8-k (2000) (giving victim right to be heard at plea hearing); R.I. Stat. 12-28-4.1 (2000) (giving victim right to make statement at plea hearing). See generally Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 15, at 476-94 (discussing victims and pleas); Sarah N. Welling, Victim Participation in Plea Bargains, 65 Wash. U. L.Q. 301 (1987). 154 See, e.g., United States v. Bean, 564 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1977). 155 But cf. George P. Fletcher, With Justice for Some: Victims' Rights in Criminal Trials 252, 257-58 (1995) (proposing that victims have a veto over any plea); Bennett L. Gershman, Crimes Against Victims: The Prosecutor's Duty of Neutrality, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. (forthcoming 2005) (discussing situations in which victims have effectively been given a veto over pleas); Karen L. Kennard, Comment, The Victim's Veto: A Way To Increase Victim Impact on Criminal Case Dispositions, 77 Cal. L. Rev. 417, 437 (1989) (advocating that victims be given a veto over any plea). 156 150 Cong. Rec. $4268 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). 157 Bed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2). DAVID SCHOEN

Related Documents (6)

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

Critique of Advisory Committee Proposal on Victim Address Disclosure in Federal Criminal Procedure

The passage discusses procedural proposals for victim privacy in criminal cases but does not mention any specific powerful individuals, agencies, financial transactions, or alleged misconduct. It offe Proposed rule allows courts to order victim address disclosure upon a defendant's showing of 'need'. Victim protection considerations are only triggered if the court chooses a second procedural optio

2p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Victim Rights to Influence Federal Sentencing Guidelines Discussed in House Oversight Document

The passage outlines procedural rules allowing victims to access and comment on presentence reports and even make sentencing recommendations, which could be leveraged to examine whether victims have b Probation officers must withhold presentence reports until a guilty plea or conviction, unless conse Defendants receive the report at least 35 days before sentencing, with victims also entitled to re

2p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Proposed Rule 11 Amendment to Require Prosecutors to Notify and Consider Victims' Views on Plea Agreements

The passage discusses a policy proposal to amend federal Rule 11 to enhance victim participation in plea negotiations. While it cites existing DOJ guidelines and state practices, it contains no concre Proposal urges prosecutors to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of plea negotiati Calls for victims' views to be considered before a plea is accepted. Cites Attorney General Guidel

2p
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

Court rulings on nondisclosure of witness identities for safety reasons

The passage discusses legal precedent regarding witness protection and disclosure rules, but it does not mention any high‑profile individuals, financial transactions, or misconduct that would merit a U.S. v. Wills (9th Cir.) allowed delayed disclosure of a witness due to safety concerns. U.S. v. Causey (6th Cir.) and U.S. v. Elizondo (7th Cir.) similarly upheld nondisclosure when witnes The Advis

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.