Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26759House OversightPolice Report

Academic footnotes on federal vs. state jurisdiction in sexual assault and police misconduct cases

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #016547
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage consists of scholarly citations and general discussion of legal frameworks without naming specific individuals, transactions, or actionable allegations. It offers minimal investigative val Discusses federalism-based enforcement redundancy in crimes like sexual assault. References the Violence Against Women Act and its lack of federal criminal offenses. Notes federal statutes (e.g., 18

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

federalismpolice-misconductlegal-scholarshippolicy-analysiscivil-rights-statuteshouse-oversightlegal-frameworksexual-assault-law
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 42 103 Minn. L. Rev. 844, *913 important kinds of crimes within states’ jurisdictions. This federalism-based model of enforcement redundancy is a distinctive if 188 Cassia Spohn & Julie Horney, Rape Law Reform: A Grassroots Revolution and Its Impact 77 (1992) (describing expectations that legal reforms would improve prosecution rates); id. at 100 ("Legal changes did not produce the dramatic results that were anticipated by reformers. The reforms had no impact in most of the jurisdictions."). 189 Jennifer L. Truman & Rachel E. Morgan, Bureau Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Criminal Victimization, 2015, at 2 tbl.1 (2016), hittps://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvl5.pdf (reporting that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated 431,840 rapes/sexual assaults in 2015); Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1996 -2015, Fed. Bureau Investigation, hittps://ucr fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/201 5/crime-in-the-u.s.-20] S/tables/table-] (last visited Oct. 30, 2018) (reporting 124,047 rape reports under the "revised definition"). 199 Cf. Jack M. Balkin & Reva B. Siegel, Principles, Practices, and Social Movements, /54 U. Pa. L. Rev. 927, 946-50 (2006) (arguing that social movements significantly shape the application of constitutional principles); Reva B. Siegel, Text in Contest: Gender and the Constitution from a Social Movement Perspective, /50 U. Pa. L. Rev. 279, 328-44 (2001) (arguing that the history of the Nineteenth Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment show that the U.S. Constitution is amenable to contestation by social movements). °! Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322 (1994) (codified at 34 U.S.C.§8$/2291-12511) (2017) (establishing a broad set of policies directed at violence against women that creates no federal criminal offenses). °2 Dripps, supra note 149, at 46-49, app. I. For an earlier proposal along the same lines, see Kim, supra note 149, at 304-09. 3 E.g., Office on Violence Against Women, supra note 178 and accompanying text. °4 The statutory authority is 42 U.S.C. § 1/414] (2016). °° See Harmon, Policing Reform, supra note 21 (discussing structural reform aimed at police violence without noting any instances of targeting sexual assault offenses). °° Leading observers view this structural reform as insufficient to address the scope of the police-misconduct problems. See id. at 59-61 (describing injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § /4/4/, noting limits on data about police misconduct, and explaining how insufficient data limits the effectiveness of reform efforts). On the prospect of reduced federal commitment to this strategy in the Trump administration, see U.S. Attorney Gen., supra note 24; Horwitz et al., supra note 24. 197 See Dripps, supra note 149, at 19 & n.100 (citing five federal actions under § 14141 addressing local agencies' responses to sexual assault crimes). 198 That is, federal criminal law is effective at successful prosecutions, if not at reducing the underlying social problem targeted by criminal law. See generally, e.g., Steven B. Duke & Albert C. Gross, America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs (1993) (examining and critiquing American drug policies). 199 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 241 (2012) (criminalizing conspiracy); id. § 242 (criminalizing willful deprivation of federal rights while acting under color of law); id. § 249 (criminalizing willful bodily injury because of victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity). Federal prosecutors focus on other serious direct-victim crimes as well, such as human trafficking and child pornography. See U.S. Dep't of Justice, supra note 145 (describing prioritization of such cases). But federal involvement in that realm is presumably motivated not so much by a need for oversight of untrustworthy state prosecutors as by the greater resources, expertise, and interstate jurisdictional advantages that federal prosecutors bring to such cases. Criminal prosecution is only one aspect of federal policies to reduce custodial deaths and improper uses of force by police. Other strategies include investigating abuse and corruption in local police agencies and using civil injunctive remedies against those agencies to change patterns of wrongdoing, as well as gathering data on custodial deaths and police uses of force. See Harmon, Policing Reform, supra note 21; Simone Weichselbaum, Policing the Police: As the Justice Department Pushes Reform, Some Changes Don't Last, Marshall Project (May 26, 2015), https:/Avww.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/23/policing -the-police (describing the difficulties in achieving lasting reforms in local police departments through federal consent decrees). 200 See 18 U.S.C. § 242 (liability for an official who "willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any [federal] rights"); United States v. Screws, 325 U.S. 91, 103 (1945) (interpreting § 242's willfulness term to require "specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right"). 201 The prosecution of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager provides an example. State prosecutors charged Slager with murder; federal prosecutors charged him with criminal violation of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242. For an example of this contrast between state and federal charges for the same offense, see Blinder, supra note 52; Michael S. Schmidt & Matt Apuzzo, Officer Is Charged with Murder of a Black Man Shot in the Back, N.Y. Times, Apr. 8, 2015, at Al. DAVID SCHOEN

Related Documents (6)

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

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 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 OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

FBI notified Epstein victims of CVRA rights before non‑prosecution agreement, suggesting DOJ misapplied victim‑rights statutes

The passage reveals that the FBI sent victim‑rights notices to Epstein’s alleged victims months before a non‑prosecution deal, implying the agency assumed CVRA applicability and later reversed its pos FBI sent a notice to Jane Doe #1 on June 7, 2007, stating her rights under the CVRA. The notice preceded the non‑prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein by over three months. The Department of Jus

2p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Potential Secret Plea Deal in Epstein Case May Have Violated Victims' Rights Under the CVRA

The passage alleges that federal prosecutors entered into an agreement that barred prosecution of sex offenses against multiple Epstein victims without informing them, suggesting possible misconduct a The CVRA may extend victim participation rights to pre‑charging negotiations. Prosecutors allegedly reached a secret agreement that blocked federal prosecution of Epstein's sex o Victims (e.g., Jane

2p
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

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.