Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35452House OversightOther

Court rulings expand victims' rights under CVRA to pre‑charge proceedings, potentially affecting Epstein non‑prosecution agreement

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017614
Pages
2
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines a line of case law that could be used to challenge the non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by arguing victims’ rights applied before charges were filed. Thi Multiple district courts have held that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) applies before formal c The Does v. United States decision suggests victims could seek relief that might invalidate Epstei

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinnonprosecution-agreementprecharge-proceedingscourt-rulingslegal-exposurepotential-misconduct-in-prosecmoderate-importancehouse-oversightvictim-rights-enforcementcvravictims-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 11 of 31 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *74 were expansive and could apply before charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least "contemplated" charges. 7! Similarly, in United States v. Oakum, ” the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered a claim that CVRA rights did not apply until after a defendant had been convicted. In rejecting that argument, the court agreed with the Dean court that victims acquire rights even before a prosecution begins. The District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held to the same effect in In re Petersen. 7* There, the court held that a victim's right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy "may apply before any prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a "court proceeding' or "case." 7° The court, however, found that the "conclusory allegations" in the victims' petition did not "create a plausible claim for relief under the CVRA." 7° [*75] Perhaps the most extensive discussion of this issue has come from the Epstein case discussed earlier. 7’ Overruling the Government's argument that the CVRA only applies after the formal filing of charges, Does v. United States held that "the statutory language clearly contemplates pre-charge proceedings." 78 The court in Does explained that "court proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-complaint or post-indictment proceedings, but can also include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which can take place before a formal charge." 7? The court also noted that the CVRA's "requirement that officials engaged in "detection [or] investigation’ [of crimes] afford victims the rights enumerated in subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA." ®° Finally, the court in Does noted that "if the CVRA's rights may be enforced before a prosecution is underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute, those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment formally charges the defendant with the crime." °! In sum, the relevant case law unanimously agrees that the CVRA extends rights to crime victims before charges have been filed. 7 Id. at 419 (internal citation omitted). Rubin's suggestion about limitations that apply to pre-indictment assertions of rights is discussed at notes 184-187 and 193 infra and accompanying text. ? No. 3:08cr132, 2009 WL 790042 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). 3 Td. at 2. ™ No, 2:10-CV-298 RM, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010). 75 Id. at 2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (Sth Cir. 2008); United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008)). 76 Id. Petersen also held that one specific CVRA right - the right to confer - only applies after charges have been filed. Id. But the authorities Petersen cites for that proposition prove no such thing. Confusingly, Petersen cited the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Dean for support; but (as just explained above) Dean held exactly the opposite. Similarly, Petersen cites other cases involving the right to confer after charges have been filed. Id. But none of these cases actually presented the issue of the CVRA's application to pre-indictment situations, since charges had already been filed in each of these cases. See, e.g., Jn re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008). 77 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). % Jd. at 134]. ® Td. 80 Id. at 1342. 81 Td. Recently, the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court found that, if the victims could prove the factual allegations they have made, then they would be entitled to relief, including potentially the relief of invalidating the nonprosecution agreement that Epstein obtained from the Government. Does v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, 2013 WL 3089046, at 3 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2013). DAVID SCHOEN

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 29

Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Plaintiff, No. 20-cv-00833 (PAE) v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. X MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT David E. McCraw Al-Amyn Sumar Alexandra Perloff-Giles The New York Times Company Legal Department 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212-556-4031 Facsimile: (212) 556-4634 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff EFTA00088701 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 27 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 I. Epstein's Arrest and Suicide 2 II. Procedural History 4 ARGUMENT 5 I. The Government Has Not Met Its Burden of Showing the Search was Adequate 6 II. The Government Has Not Met Its Burden of Ju

29p
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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNCLASSIF IEDMES

UNCLASSIF IEDMES 0 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Approved by CID A/AD on 7/17/2024 Epstein Investigation Summary & Timeline FBI Miami investigation: • In 2005, the West Palm Beach Police Department, and then FBI Miami, initiated an investigation of Epstein after parents of a victim reported to law enforcement that Epstein had sexually abused their daughter from 2002-2005. • Those investigations spanned approximately two years and included, among other things, interviews with approximately 35 victims, a search warrant executed on Epstein's Florida (FL) residence, and detailed analysis of various phone and flight records. FBI New York investigation: • On December 6, 2018, FBI NY initiated a case after Southern District of New York (SDNY) contacted FBI NY regarding several victims that had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in the mid 2000's. • Beginning in at least 2002, Epstein enticed and recruited dozens of minor girls to eng

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP

CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAMOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. / PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF SERVING VERIFIED ANSWERS TO SECOND INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW the Plaintiff, , by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby gives notice that that Verified Answers to Second Interrogatories propounded by the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, on August 28, 2009, have been furnished to the attorney for the Defendant. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by e-mail this trday of November, 2009 to alt counsel ob the attached service list. Attorney tor minim 3505-038 Page I of 5 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00005262 EFTA00157825 CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP VS. EPSTEIN, et al Case No.: 08-CV-80811-Marra/Johnson Plaintiffs Verified Answers to Second Interrogatories SERVICE LIST Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldb

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter with respect to the protective order to be entered in the above-captioned case, and to respond to the defendant's letter and submission of July 27, 2020 (the "Defendant Letter" or "Def. Ltr.") (Dkt. 29). The Government and defense counsel have conferred regarding a protective order several times via telephone and email between July 9, 2020, and today, including as recently as this morning. The Government and defense counsel have come to an agreement on much of the proposed protective order. However, the parties

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1 U.S. Department ofJustiee United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Bullefing One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 August 19, 2019 VIA ECF The Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) Dear Judge Berman: As the Court is aware, on the morning of August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein died while in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. On August 16, 2019, and after conducting an autopsy, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York issued a statement identifying the cause of death as hanging, and the manner of death as suicide. In light of the death of the defendant prior to a conviction becoming final, the Government must request the Court approve the attached proposed or

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.