U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–546 PDF 2010

CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT OF 2004 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

Serial No. 111–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Eileen Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

Mr. Laurence E. Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Ms. Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

Mr. Douglas E. Beloof, Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School, Portland, OR 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Ms. Susan Howley, Director of Public Policy, National Center for Victims 

of Crime, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 55 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 73 

(1) 

CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT OF 2004 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:04 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Jackson Lee, Quigley, Poe, and 

Goodlatte. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommitte Chief Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Ron LeGrand, Counsel; Veronica 

Eligan, Professional Staff Member; and (Minority) Kimani Little, 

Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will come to order, and I would 

like to welcome you on today’s hearing on the Crime Victims’ 

Rights Act of 2004. 

There have been several attempts to amend the United States 

Constitution to recognize the role of crime victims in the criminal 

justice process. Having been unable to come to a consensus about 

a constitutional amendment, in 2004 Congress enacted statutes 

and other statutes that have established certain statutory rights 

for crime victims and provides funding for services for crime victims. 

Using a statue rather than a constitutional amendment avoids 

the complications which arise when defendants’ rights might be 

compromised under a constitutional amendment. And so, since 

1982 the Federal Government has passed a number of laws that 

address the role of crime victims in the criminal justice system, including the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004. 

That act was signed into law as part title I of the Justice for All 

Act. The law improved the role of victims in the criminal prosecution, including identifying eight specific rights of Federal crime victims, including the right of victim witnesses not to be excluded 

from public court proceedings unless the court determines that the 

victim’s testimony would be influenced. 

Crime victims are also given the right to be reasonably heard at 

any public proceeding in a district court involving the release, plea, 

sentencing, or the right to be heard at any parole hearing. The 

2004 law gives victims the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely 

2 

notice of any public court proceeding, any parole hearing, any release or the escape of a defendant. 

The act also established two procedures to ensure the victims’ 

rights are protected under the law. First, the law directed the Department of Justice to develop a process to receive and investigate 

complaints relating to violations of crime victims’ rights to ensure 

that the Department employees are complying with the requirements of the 2004 law. In addition, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act 

enables victims to assert their rights in district court not only 

when they believe a Department employee has violated their rights 

but when they have had any concerns about their ability to exercise their rights. 

In addition, the 2004 act directed the U.S. Accountability Office 

to evaluate the implementation of the law. The GAO will testify 

today about its December 2008 report which assessed how the Department of Justice has ensured crime victims are given their statutory rights. 

One of the findings in the GAO report concluded that several important issues have surfaced as Federal courts interpret the rights 

given to victims under the act. For example, questions such as: At 

what point in the criminal justice process do crime victims’ rights 

apply? And does the law apply to local offenses prosecuted in the 

District of Columbia Superior Court? Both of those have been litigated in Federal court but essentially remain unsettled. 

I hope the Department in its testimony will discuss its position 

on various unsettled legal issues that have resulted from different 

court interpretations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. 

Finally, the 2004 law authorized funding for programs that provide crime victims with services, funding for organizations that 

provide legal counsel to Federal crime victims, and funding for the 

improved Victim Notification System. Although most of these 

grants have been reauthorized to 2013, we will review how the 

funding has been spent to date. 

It is important to note that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act only 

applies to Federal prosecution, but we also have a concern about 

how victims are treated in State court. And, indeed, $100 million 

in the recent recovery package provided funding for State compensation and assistance for victims. 

We have several distinguished witnesses who will testify about 

how the 2004 Crime Victims’ Rights Act has been implemented, including representatives from the GAO and the Department of Justice. 

Before we get to the witnesses, it is my pleasure to recognize the 

Ranking Member for today, Mr. Poe from Texas. Judge Gohmert is 

not with us, and Mr. Poe is sitting in on his behalf. 

Mr. Poe? 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling this 

oversight hearing on the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004. To my 

knowledge, this will be the Subcommittee’s first hearing on this 

landmark piece of legislation in this or the previous Congress. 

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act, or the CVRA, was passed as part 

of the Justice for All Act in 2004. The CVRA significantly expanded 

the rights of crime victims in the criminal justice system. The overarching goal of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act was to make sure 

3 

that victims of Federal crimes enjoy certain rights of notice, attendance, participation in Federal criminal justice process. 

It is my opinion that the same Constitution that protects defendants of crime protects victims of crime, as well. As crime victims 

are afforded numerous protections under the Bill of Rights and 

other Federal laws, there was a feeling among many Members of 

Congress that the criminal justice system did not have enough protections, statutory protections, for rights of victims. 

To address that imbalance, Congress created a statutory bill of 

rights for victims of crime committed in violation of Federal law or 

the laws of the District of Columbia. The rights conveyed by the 

CVRA are those eight rights: the right to be reasonably protected 

from the accused; the right to notification of public court and parole 

proceedings and the release of the accused; the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances; 

and the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to 

bail, acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing or parole; the right 

to confer with the prosecutor; the right to restitution under the 

law; the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays; and 

the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one’s dignity and 

privacy. 

Now, the CVRA directs the courts and law enforcement officials 

to see to it that these rights are honored. Both victims and prosecutors may assert the rights and seek review from the appellate court 

should the rights be initially denied. 

In addition to the statutory rights, the CVRA created grant programs and other authorizations to protect and to further crime victims’ rights. To me, this is a good use of taxpayer money. Under 

the CVRA, the Department of Justice may make grants to State, 

tribal, local law enforcement agencies, and public and private entities to develop and maintain programs for the enforcement of crime 

victims’ rights as provided by the law. 

As a former prosecutor and judge, I have had personal experience 

working with Americans who have been victimized by crime and 

whose lives and their families’ lives have been torn apart. I started 

in the criminal justice system back in the 1970’s as a prosecutor 

and then a judge, I guess, forever until I came to Congress. 

And one case I prosecuted back in the 1970’s was a homicide that 

involved four people. An entire family was assassinated for the life 

inheritance of these four individuals. One of those was a child, 

Kevin Wanstraf. He is the same age as one of my four kids, my 

son. And I have always had this photograph on my desk since that 

prosecution in 1979, because he was 14 months old when he was 

murdered, and I have always wondered how he would turn out, 

how his siblings would turn out. 

And I think it is important that we, in this sterile environment 

of Washington, D.C., remember that victims of crime are people. 

They are American people who have had their lives shattered by 

the fact that someone else picked them to be prey, to have something stolen from them, to have an assault committed against 

them, or have a homicide committed against them. 

And so I appreciate the Chairman having this hearing. As a 

Member of Congress, I do serve as co-chair of the Victims’ Rights 

Caucus. It is a bipartisan caucus that advocates for crime victims 

4 

and also for law enforcement officials. And so I enthusiastically 

support the CVRA and look forward to hearing testimony. I welcome all the witnesses for being here today. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Does the gentleman from Illinois have any comments? 

The gentleman from Illinois did a lot of work in criminal law in 

Illinois. 

The gentleman from Virginia, my colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, do 

you have any comments? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Did you do prosecution or defense? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I did some court-appointed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. So you are very familiar with the criminal justice process. 

We will now get to our witnesses. 

The first witness is Ms. Eileen Larence, who currently serves as 

the director for homeland security and justice issues at the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. In her capacity at the GAO, she 

manages congressional requests to assess various law enforcement 

and Department of Justice issues, as well as state terrorism-related 

information-sharing since 9/11. She has a master’s degree in public 

administration. 

Our second witness today is Mr. Laurence Rothenberg, a deputy 

assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. He has helped develop and implement policies 

regarding victims’ rights, trafficking in persons, child exploitation,Indian country, international human rights, and forensic 

sciences. He is a graduate of Amherst College, Fletcher School of 

Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Harvard Law School. 

The third witness is Mary Lou Leary, acting assistant attorney 

general in the Office of Justice Programs and at the Department 

of Justice. Prior to joining the Department, she served as executive 

director for the National Center for Victims of Crime, a nonprofit 

organization in Washington, D.C. She also has served as deputy associate attorney general for the Office of the Associate Attorney 

General and acting director of the Office of Community-Oriented 

Policing Services, or the COPS program, during her previous service at the Department. 

Our next witness is Douglas Beloof, professor of law at Lewis 

and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. He is the director of the 

National Crime Victim Law Institute, which represents crime victims in appellate court. The institute also performs research and 

maintains a database and brief bank on victim law and promotes 

legal education of law students, lawyers, judges, and victims’ advocates on victim law issues. He received his bachelor of arts from 

the University of California, Berkeley, and his juris doctorate from 

Lewis and Clark Law School. 

Our final witness is Susan Smith Howley, director of public policy for the National Center for Victims of Crime. She has also 

served as the center’s director of victims’ services and is one of the 

Nation’s foremost experts on crime victims’ rights laws. She is a 

graduate of Georgetown University Law Center. 

5 

Each of our witnesses’ testimony will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. We would ask each witness to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within the time, there 

is a timing device at the table which will begin as green, turn to 

yellow when there is 1 minute left, and turn red when your time 

is expired. 

We will begin with Ms. Larence. 

TESTIMONY OF EILEEN LARENCE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LARENCE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am pleased to be here today to summarize the results of our review of how well the Victims’ Rights Act is working at its 5-year 

anniversary. 

In response to a mandate from the Congress, GAO answered four 

questions about the act, among other things. First, we determined 

what steps the Department of Justice and the courts were taking 

to implement the act and fix any implementation problems. Second, 

we assessed how well the act’s two enforcement mechanisms were 

working. Third, we reviewed how the courts are interpreting the 

meaning of key provisions in the act that raise questions. And, 

fourth, we asked various participants what difference they think 

the act has made. 

In summary, we found that the Department and the courts have 

taken steps to provide employees with guidance, training, and revised rules, and victims with court access and services. 

They have also taken steps to overcome challenges, some of 

which are inherent to the judicial process. For example, cases of 

computer fraud or identity theft can involve large numbers of victims. This makes it hard to notify all victims of court proceedings 

or let all of them speak in court. Justice staff were using media 

outlets and teleconferences, among other things, to overcome these 

hurdles. 

The Department also was providing funding to hire contractors 

to help with the increased administrative workload, such as the increased number of notices of court proceedings that must now be 

sent to victims. 

While we tried, we could not determine just how much funding 

the Department was appropriated to implement the act. As you 

know, Congress authorized funding for fiscal years 2005 through 

2009 and extended that funding for, among other things, staff assistance, enhanced notification systems, legal support to victims, 

and grants to States and localities for victim assistance. But because the Department receives funds for CVRA lumped in with 

funds for other victim assistance efforts, it is not possible to separate out and report on CVRA funding. 

Turning now to the two enforcement mechanisms that, Mr. 

Chairman, you mentioned in your opening statement, victims reported that they did not use these tools, in part because they didn’t 

really know about them. 

For example, the Department created the Victim Rights Ombudsman to receive and investigate complaints about Justice employees 

not affording victims their rights. We found, however, that few vicVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\092909\52546.000 HJUD1 PsN: 52546
6 

tims filed complaints, and many reported they didn’t know they 

could. 

We also found that the complaint process was not as independent 

and impartial as it could be. For example, in some cases, Justice 

employees were investigating complaints about their officemates or 

supervisors. 

In addition, we found victims did not use the second enforcement 

mechanism to file a motion in court and, subsequently, a writ of 

mandamus in appeals court if they believed their rights were compromised. 

We recommended that the Department take steps to address all 

of these issues. The Department, in turn, convened a working 

group that is assessing how to respond to these recommendations 

and has already made changes to the ombudsman process to help 

ensure independence. 

In regard to our third question, as is typical with many new 

laws, the courts have been interpreting provisions in the act to answer questions about it, such as: Do rights apply before a person 

is charged with an offense? If victims only submit written statements, were they, quote, ‘‘reasonably heard in court?’’ 

The Department and courts agree, however, that the Congress 

should change the law to answer one question that has caused confusion: Does the act apply to victims of local crimes in D.C. Superior Court? Some judges in this court have applied the act, while 

others have not. The Department had proposed legislation to establish that the law does apply, but no action was taken. We suggest 

that the Congress consider clarifying the act to address this issue. 

Finally, we asked various participants if they thought the act 

had made a difference. Perhaps not surprisingly, views are mixed. 

Most maintained that the act did improve awareness about victim 

rights, victim treatment, and victim participation in the legal process. Others maintained that Federal and State governments, as 

well as the courts, were already providing victims these rights because of State laws, so perhaps the act had little impact. 

Victims said they were aware of most, but not all, of their rights, 

and victims varied as to how satisfied they were that their rights 

had been honored. Additionally, some expressed concerns that the 

focus on victims’ rights could come at the expense of defendants’ interests. For example, some claim that if victims hear the testimony 

of other witnesses, victims may alter their own testimony, which 

could increase the likelihood that the defendant is found guilty. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Larence follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EILEEN R. LARENCE


ERL-1.eps
8 


ERL-2.eps
9 


ERL-3.eps
10 


ERL-4.eps
11 


ERL-5.eps
12 


ERL-6.eps
13 


ERL-7.eps
14 


ERL-8.eps
15 


ERL-9.eps
16 


ERL-10.eps
17 


ERL-11.eps
18 


ERL-12.eps
19 


ERL-13.eps
20 


ERL-14.eps
21 


ERL-15.eps
22 


ERL-16.eps
23 


ERL-17.eps
24 


ERL-18.eps
25 


ERL-19.eps
26 


ERL-20.eps
27 


ERL-21.eps
28 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Rothenberg? 

TESTIMONY OF LAURENCE E. ROTHENBERG, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott, Ranking 

Member Poe, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Laurence Rothenberg, and I am a deputy assistant attorney general in 


ERL-22.eps
29 

the Office of Legal Policy in the Department of Justice, where I 

have worked on victims’ rights issues for more than 5 years, including, specifically, the implementation of the CVRA. 

I also have a personal interest in and commitment to this work 

as the son of a murder victim. My father was murdered in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands in 1974 in a case that was successfully prosecuted 

by the U.S. Attorney’s Office there. Thus, I have firsthand appreciation of the needs of Federal crime victims and the importance 

of DOJ employees taking those rights seriously. 

Indeed, the rights of crime victims are of critical importance to 

the Department, and we are glad the Subcommittee is focusing on 

those rights and we have been given the opportunity to discuss the 

Department’s important work in this area. 

In the 5 years since passage of the CVRA, the Department has 

worked hard to fulfill both its letter and its spirit. Almost immediately after passage of the act, an extensive awareness and education program was commenced within the Department. 

Using funding provided by the Office for Victims of Crime, the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys held a series of 

trainings, both live and by video, in an effort to reach all those in 

the Department who work with crime victims to spread the message of the new crime victims’ rights law. 

Under OLP’s coordination, the Attorney General Guidelines for 

Victim and Witness Assistance were substantially revised in May 

2005 to include the act’s new protections. And the training video 

on the new AG guidelines was distributed to all Department components with victim responsibilities. 

We also established the Office of the Victims’ Rights Ombudsman, which has the authority to investigate complaints under the 

CVRA made by victims against DOJ employees. The vast majority 

of complaints received by the VRO were not within the VRO’s jurisdiction, however, because they either referred to State or private 

authorities, judges, non-DOJ agencies, or were complaints from individuals who were not victims in any ongoing Federal cases. 

Of those cases within the VRO’s jurisdiction, many involved simple errors, such as the victims’ names being inadvertently being 

left off of restitution mailing lists or inquiries about defendants 

falling behind in restitution payments. 

Our work has had a real effect on victims, but it is always difficult to quantify a change in awareness. We have indications that 

victims are participating in cases more often and receiving more 

and better services. For example, the number of victim notifications 

sent by the Department has nearly tripled since passage of the 

CVRA, and victims are participating in more proceedings than ever 

before. 

Essential victim services have also increased. In fiscal year 2008, 

for example, victim witness personnel in the U.S. Attorney’s offices 

provided referral assistance to 27 percent more victims than in fiscal year 2006, when we started tracking that data. We utilized a 

wide range of resources from State, local, and Federal agencies and 

victims service organizations. 

The Department has also used the CVRA provisions to protect 

victims’ rights in court. For example, we are currently litigating 

the right of victims to be heard in child pornography cases. Last 

30 

year, a district court in California, on its own, struck victim impact 

statements from the presentencing report for a defendant who had 

pled guilty to possession of images of child sexual abuse. The court 

said the statements were not relevant to the possession charge, 

only to the actual abuse. 

We believe this is legal error, as a long line of cases establishes 

that children whose sexual abuse has been photographed are revictimized every time those images are viewed by another offender. 

Indeed, the victim impact statements in this case specifically describe the emotional harm felt by the victims as a result of the 

knowledge that images of their sexual abuse are in circulation and 

continually viewed by offenders. We are aggressively pursuing the 

right of these victims to have their say before the court, and the 

appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit. 

I believe that GAO’s review validates the overwhelmingly positive impact of the CVRA and of the Department’s efforts to implement it. GAO found the majority of crime victims were aware of 

most of their CVRA rights. They found that victims are, on the 

whole, satisfied with the Department’s provision of those rights. 

GAO did make some recommendations based upon its review, as 

the previous witness described. And, also, as our previous described, we have convened a working group that has examined 

these issues, and we are preparing specific responses to them, including, for example, the one that we have already taken in order 

to revise the VRO’s procedures to eliminate the problem of appearance of conflict of interest. 

That concludes my statement, and I look forward to hearing your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothenberg follows:] 

31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURENCE E. ROTHENBERG


LER-1.eps
32 


LER-2.eps
33 


LER-3.eps
34 


LER-4.eps
35 


LER-5.eps
36 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Leary? 

TESTIMONY OF MARY LOU LEARY, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you. 


LER-6.eps
37 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Poe, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with 

you the Department of Justice’s efforts to implement the CVRA. 

We appreciate your interest in this issue. 

I, myself, have a particular interest in the issue, since I have 

been working with victims of crime throughout my career as a local 

prosecutor, a Federal prosecutor, head of a national victims’ advocacy organization and as an official at the Department of Justice. 

Treating crime victims with dignity and with respect and protecting their rights is a high priority for the Attorney General, Mr. 

Holder, and for the entire Department of Justice, including the Office of Justice Programs, better known as OJP. And, as GAO’s recent audit demonstrates, the Department really has made substantial efforts to comply with its obligations to victims of crime, whether or not those obligations are imposed by the CVRA or any other 

provision of Federal law. OJP has played a critical role in those efforts through its policy development and through program funding. 

As this Committee is aware, the CVRA tasks the office of Victims 

of Crime in OJP with collecting victim service information from 

other DOJ components. OVC is required to submit a report of this 

information to the Attorney General. This year, OVC submitted a 

combined report, its information for 2005 through 2007, that summarizes DOJ component reports, and it also makes a number of 

recommendations for improvements throughout DOJ components. 

And, currently, OVC is working on creating the 2008 Attorney General compliance report. 

Also in response to a recommendation in the GAO audit, OVC is 

working with the Office of Legal Policy and other DOJ components 

to develop a standardized compliance survey that will be completed 

annually by all components at the Department and will give us a 

much clearer idea of departmental efforts in this arena. 

The AG report is really just one of the many ways in which OJP 

is working with other DOJ components to improve victims’ services 

and protect their rights. In 2005, OVC provided the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys with a million dollars to provide training on 

CVRA. OVC has also, for many years, provided support for Federal 

victim coordinator and specialist positions in both U.S. Attorney’s 

offices and in FBI field offices. 

I know from my own experience as an AUSA that these specialists are absolutely critical and they provide essential services. One 

example is with terrorism and trafficking victims. In the aftermath 

of last year’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, where there were 

a number of American victims, victim specialists quickly identified 

120 victims. They arranged for repatriation for victims that died in 

the attacks and evacuated those who were injured. 

And those specialists continue to this day to provide services to 

those victims and to their families: crisis counseling, therapy referrals, employer intervention, verification for crime victim compensation programs, and a number of other services and notifications of 

rights. Those victim specialists have made all the difference for the 

victims of that attack. 

Another important example: In fiscal year 2009, OVC provided 

over a million dollars for model projects, particularly in Indian 

country, to provide support to the U.S. Attorney’s offices and BuVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\092909\52546.000 HJUD1 PsN: 52546
38 

reau of Indian Affairs district offices on victim services and victims’ 

rights. 

One of the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocates that was hired 

through this program recently worked with 17 high school kids who 

were involved in a very tragic vehicular homicide on the White 

River Apache Reservation. Seventeen kids piled into a pickup 

truck, driving around the reservation. The driver had been drinking, drove the car into a ditch. The front-seat passenger was killed, 

her cousin was killed, and four others were critically injured. And 

the victim specialists are working with all those victims and with 

their families and with the community. 

OVC also supports the nationwide victim notification system, 

which is a shared Web-based application. It involves FBI, Postal 

Inspection Service, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, DOJ, and Bureau of 

Prisons. This provides victims with a toll-free number. They can 

use that number to get access to current case information. And 

there is also a Web site that provides that information, as well. We 

are working with EOUSA to make sure that every DOJ component 

gets linked up to that system. 

OVC has also undertaken other efforts to enhance provision of 

victims’ services at every level of the criminal justice system. We 

have awarded over $4 million to the National Crime Victim Law 

Institute for the Crime Victims’ Rights Enforcement Project. You 

will hear a lot more about this from Mr. Beloof, but they are working throughout the country to provide direct representation to 

crime victims to enforce their rights in court. 

In addition to OVC, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is 

also part of OJP, has awarded over $39 million to 38 States and 

Puerto Rico through the State Automated Victim Information and 

Notification Program, better known as SAVIN. And that helps 

States build, implement, and improve this State-level victim notification capacity. It helps the States get the technology they need to 

maintain critical information about offenders in almost real time. 

So crime victims in States now have unprecedented access to 

real-time information. Imagine what that means to a victim of a 

sexual assault who is terrified that the offender will be released 

from prison and she won’t know about it and she will turn around 

one day and there he will be in the neighborhood. That victim can 

get real-time information and should not ever be surprised like 

that. 

I would like you to know that the Department will continue to 

expand and improve its efforts to assist victims and to protect their 

rights under the CVRA and under every other pertinent provision 

of law. This has always been a critical part of the Department’s 

mission, and it will continue to be so. 

Thank you for your attention, and I will take any questions you 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary follows:] 

39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY


MLL-1.eps
40 


MLL-2.eps
41 


MLL-3.eps
42 


MLL-4.eps
43 


MLL-5.eps
44 


MLL-6.eps
45 


MLL-7.eps
46 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Beloof? 

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS E. BELOOF, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

LEWIS AND CLARK LAW SCHOOL, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. BELOOF. Thank you, Mr. Chair Scott, honorable Members of 

the Committee. 

I assisted in the drafting of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 

2004. Right now, the CVRA represents a broken promise to crime 

victims in several essential respects. 

First of all, the authorized funding of the CVRA has not been 

forthcoming in the form of an additional appropriation. The efforts 

the government is talking about largely have been made out of existing funds. 

There has been an appropriation in one category of funding that 

is of particular interest to me. It was a critical component of the 

CVRA to provide independent legal services to enforce these rights. 

The amount authorized in the CVRA was $7 million and $11 million thereafter for a period of 5 years. That amount has been reauthorized by Congress within the last year. There have been 3 years of that money coming: under $2 million, a little over $2 million, and $4 million. Funding close to the level 

of your authorization has never occurred. This year, there is no 

funding at all for these services, for these legal services, despite the 

fact that it has been authorized. 

This is, in my mind, perhaps the most critical problem with the 

implementation of the CVRA. Authorization without appropriation 

dooms the CVRA experiment. 

As the Chair noted, this legislation was passed in lieu of a constitutional right. And one of the central premises of this statutory 

scheme were to test these laws with independent attorneys to see 

if they would be satisfactory. 

This testing is occurring on an extremely limited basis. We have 

created a slim framework of legal clinics with extremely limited 

funding. This network of legal services and the case banks and information collected is all on the brink of collapse shortly. Without 

authorization for this funding, the CVRA and the State law equivalents of victims’ rights will have no champions and, as a result, are 

likely doomed to mediocrity or failure. 

The second biggest critical problem I see is the split of authority 

in the courts that threatens to, as a practical matter, end enforcement of crime victims’ rights. The dispute is over whether the 

standard of review of appeals from violations of victims’ rights is 

that of an appeal or that of mandamus. 

A standard of review of appeal guarantees meaningful review in 

all cases where victims’ rights are violated. It has been the Justice 

Department’s position that the standard of review should instead 

be mandamus. A standard of review of mandamus means that 

there will rarely be enforcement of victims’ rights on review. The 

Federal Circuit courts are currently split on this issue. 

The third critical problem I see in the implementation of victims’ 

rights is that the United States Department of Justice has taken 

a variety of positions adverse to both the letter and spirit of the 

CVRA. The most critical of these is, as I mentioned, the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\092909\52546.000 HJUD1 PsN: 52546
47 

ment’s position on the standard of review, but there are others as 

well. 

Another unfortunate stance of the Department of Justice has 

been to seek a very narrow definition of ‘‘victim,’’ first, that there 

only be a victim after the government indicts, and, second, they 

have sought a narrow construction of the definition of ‘‘proximate 

harm.’’ 

On the other hand, in fairness, there have been cases in which 

the Justice Department has cooperated with lawyers that I am 

aware of. And it has worked out very well, and there has been substantial success. However, the level of cooperation is a far more 

common occurrence in State courts than in Federal prosecutions. 

Members of Congress should ask the present Attorney General to 

revisit the approach to crime victims’ rights that some in the Department have taken and encourage the Department to take a position that makes these rights expansive rather than reduces them. 

As critical as I am of these unfortunate positions taken by the 

Department, the most regrettable shortcoming, again, I would like 

to emphasize, is the failure to fund the CVRA. This experiment 

cannot be tested without it. 

I want to say quickly that I am very grateful for the Office of Victims of Crime, which has worked diligently with limited resources—resources, mostly, that have not been appropriated under 

this authorization—to try to do something with the resources they 

have concerning the CVRA. They are to be commended for that. 

We could all do a lot more with a proper amount of funding. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beloof follows:] 

48 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS E. BELOOF


DEB-1.eps
49 


DEB-2.eps
50 


DEB-3.eps
51 


DEB-4.eps
52 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Beloof. 

Ms. Howley? 

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN HOWLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. HOWLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott and Members of 

the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to 


DEB-5.eps
53 

talk about the implementation of the ‘‘Scott Campbell, Stephanie 

Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004.’’ 

I will focus my testimony today on four issues. First is the need 

to clarify the applicability of the act prior to the formal filing of 

charges; the need to clarify the applicability in the District Columbia; the need to strengthen the victims’ rights compliance program; 

and the need to refine and fund the CVRA’s grant programs. 

There has been some question, as you have heard, as to the applicability of the CVRA prior to the filing of charges. We urge Congress to clarify. While a number of the rights in the CVRA specifically apply to the criminal justice process, and so would logically 

attach after the filing of charges, others are not so inherently limited. 

For example, victims should be entitled to fair treatment from 

the time they file a complaint with law enforcement. If a victim expresses fear for his or her safety prior to the filing of charges, the 

criminal justice system should provide the assistance it can regarding protection. And, when cases involve official plea negotiations 

prior to the filing of charges, surely the victim’s right to confer with 

the prosecutors must attach. Otherwise, we are making a mockery 

of the victim’s right to confer. 

We also ask Congress to clarify the applicability of cases in the 

District of Columbia Superior Court. While the definition of ‘‘victim’’ states that crimes in the District of Columbia are clearly covered by the CVRA, other sections create ambiguity by referring 

solely to the District Court and appeals therefrom, rather than specifically including the D.C. Superior Court. 

We also agree with the GAO that the victims’ rights compliance 

system is inadequate. My written testimony makes a number of 

suggestions, but I want to address one here. 

As you have heard, the GAO found that Federal victims were unaware that they had a right to file a complaint or the right to seek 

legal advice. We urge Congress to give crime victims the right to 

be informed of their legal rights, including the right to file a complaint and the right to seek legal advice. 

Finally, I want to highlight two important CVRA grant programs. The first is to provide money to the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

victim/witness programs. The drafters of the CVRA understood 

that the law would create additional burdens. To our knowledge, 

this grant program has never been requested or appropriated. 

Money is needed for additional data-entry low-level contractors to 

relieve victim service specialists from the routine entry of victim 

contact information and free them to provide the important handson victim assistance for which they have been trained. The program should specifically allow funding for such data-entry positions. It should also be expanded to include the investigation stage, 

because victim specialists at that stage also have significant dataentry burdens related to the victims’ right to notification. 

We also urge increased funding for organizations that provide 

legal assistance to victims in criminal cases. Our National Crime 

Victim Helpline receives calls from too many victims who need this 

type of help, and we have too few places to send them. 

54 

Just last week, we got a call from the mother of a 12-year-old 

sexual assault victim. In the 2 years the case had been pending, 

she had never been notified of the status of the case by the prosecutor’s office. She had made repeated attempts to learn the status 

of the case. Finally, she found out that a plea agreement had already been entered. She now wants to make a victim impact statement but has no confidence that she will be allowed to. Our staff 

counseled her on how to advocate for herself, but she really needs 

a victims’ rights clinic or victims’ rights attorney, and her State has 

none. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. The National Center would be pleased to assist you as you work to refine 

and reauthorize the provisions of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Howley follows:] 

55 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN SMITH HOWLEY


SSH-1.eps
56 


SSH-2.eps
57 


SSH-3.eps
58 


SSH-4.eps
59 


SSH-5.eps
60 


SSH-6.eps
61 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank everyone. I want to thank all of our witnesses for your 

testimony. 

Now we will recognize ourselves under the 5-minute rule for 

questions. 

First, I don’t know whether this is Mr. Rothenberg or Ms. Leary: 

Does the Department have a position on the situation in Washington, D.C.? It is my understanding that all of the prosecutions in 

the State, in the District courts—excuse me—in the courts, D.C. 

Courts, as opposed to the Federal courts, if they are felonies, the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office is doing the prosecution. Is that right? 

Ms. LEARY. Your question is, are all the local crimes prosecuted 

in the D.C. Courts? 

Mr. SCOTT. At least the felonies. 

Ms. LEARY. Yes. Yes. Some crimes could be brought in either 

D.C. Superior Court or in the District Court. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Federal District Court. 

Ms. LEARY. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. And if it is a felony, the U.S. Attorney is prosecuting whichever court it lands in. 

Ms. LEARY. Correct. 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Even misdemeanors, all crimes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Even misdemeanors? Okay. The corporation counsel 

doesn’t do that? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. No. 

Ms. LEARY. Juvenile crime is prosecuted primarily by the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. It used to be called Office 

of Corporation Counsel. And for juveniles transferred for prosecution as an adult, it would be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. But for all other felonies, it is the U.S. Attorney. Does the Department have a position on whether or not this 

act ought to apply in Washington, D.C., in those cases prosecuted 

by the U.S. Attorney? 

Ms. LEARY. For all practical purposes, the Superior Court operations at the U.S. Attorney’s Office operate as if it is applicable. 

But I would defer to Mr. Rothenberg on any policy questions. 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Of course, what my colleague, Mary Lou, just 

said is absolutely accurate. The Department considers that it applies, and we act in all circumstances if it does apply. I believe, to 

the extent that that is not the case, as the GAO indicated, there 

are some judges who do not believe that it applies. 

Mr. SCOTT. So you wouldn’t be offended if we made it specific, 

made it clear that it does apply? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I don’t want to make a decision on that right 

at this moment, on what changes. But we are happy to work with 

you on any changes you feel would be appropriate. 

Mr. SCOTT. One of the things about the act is that some of the 

provisions are labor-intensive. I mean, some work has to be done, 

which means you have to have enough staff in the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office to work with the victims and witnesses. As I think both Mr. 

Beloof and Ms. Howley have indicated, we haven’t appropriated the 

money. 

How much would we need to provide the assistance contemplated 

under this act that has not been appropriated? 

62 

Ms. LEARY. I don’t know what the exact figure would be, but we 

can work with you on that. 

I will say that improvements have been made, and some of them 

through additional staffing provided to the offices and some of 

them through automation. The Victim Notification System is connected directly to the electronic case filing systems in the District 

Court. So that really expedites the notification and really eliminates error and inaccuracy and saves a lot of time. 

Mr. SCOTT. But are you going to work with us to get the appropriations so that we can provide the service contemplated under 

the act? 

Ms. LEARY. We will be happy to work with the Committee on all 

of that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, we have talked about definition of ‘‘victims,’’ 

and comments have been made about, in some cases, the management of the victims can be complicated. 

The Madoff case, does anybody know what happened with the 

victims in that case, how they were managed? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I am not specifically familiar with the case. If 

there are particular concerns that you have, I would be happy to 

work with your staff. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you had lots of victims. Did they all get to make 

impact statements? I mean, somebody ripped off at the level that 

the reports have—the public reports are that a lot of people got 

ripped off, and each individual would consider him or herself a 

huge victim. Did everybody get to make a comment? 

Ms. LEARY. Yeah, actually, there is a significant number of victims in the Madoff case, and we have seen this in some other cases 

too. I am sure you remember the terrorism prosecutions in the 

Eastern District of Virginia. And there was litigation, actually, over 

whether each victim could make a statement and so on. 

I don’t know the specifics in the Madoff case, but we can certainly look into that and find out for you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do we have other problems with determining who is 

a victim? I mean, if you have a gang shootout, I mean, is there a 

problem with who is a victim and who is not a victim? Has that 

been a problem? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I am sorry—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask Mr. Beloof. 

Has that been a problem, determining who is a victim and who 

may not be a victim? 

Mr. BELOOF. I actually think the definition that Congress came 

up with is a perfect definition. The challenge we are having is we 

are having to litigate that issue against the Department of Justice. 

It is a very expansion definition of ‘‘victim.’’ It includes any victim 

who is proximately harmed by the offense. So I haven’t seen a 

problem with the definition itself. What I have seen is what I think 

is unnecessary litigation about what the scope of that is. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, Mr. Beloof, you have been litigating. Are you 

litigating because the act is not clear enough or because in individual fact situations you have to figure out what the facts are to 

see how to apply the law? 

Mr. BELOOF. Well, I guess a little of both. But I think some of 

the litigation is unnecessary, in the sense that it is clear when vicVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\092909\52546.000 HJUD1 PsN: 52546
63 

tims get their rights under the statute, and I think it is clear what 

the definition of ‘‘victim’’ is. 

The definition of ‘‘victim’’ is someone who has been proximately 

harmed by the event, and proximate harm is not a mystery in law. 

There are a lot of cases that define the scope and outline of proximate harm in other contexts that are applicable to this. 

So, both are true. There are a few things that are unclear. The 

standard of review is not crystal-clear. The definition of ‘‘victim’’ is 

pretty clear. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. I have other questions but will defer to Mr. 

Poe at this point. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Beloof, I have some questions regarding review. A complaint 

is made for the violation of one of the eight rights. The victim notifies your office or is put in contact with your office in some cases. 

Can you give me some ballpark figure of number of complaints, 

number of filings, whether it is an appeal or a mandamus, and success, how has it turned out? Has the victim’s right been upheld or 

not founded by the appellate court? 

Mr. BELOOF. Easier to start backwards, if I can. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Mr. BELOOF. And we have mandamus. There is not a flood of 

mandamus. We have, you know, very limited resources for attorneys to do these things. But the answer is, there is a mix of success, and that success depends largely on what the standard of review interpretation is. Sometimes we are litigating these cases 

alongside the Justice Department, in cooperation with them. Sometimes we are litigating against the Justice Department. 

In terms of numbers, I would have to get back to you on those 

numbers. There are far more State cases than Federal cases. And, 

remember, one thing the CVRA does not do is it does not apply in 

State cases, so we are litigating State rights in those cases. 

Mr. POE. Do you think Congress ought to make it clear whether 

it should be appellate review or a mandamus? 

Mr. BELOOF. I think it is critical that Congress make clear that 

it is an appellate review standard, standard of appellate review. It 

is critical. Otherwise, these rights are really, essentially, from a 

legal perspective, not enforceable, very often. And that was the 

whole function of the experiment of the statute. At least, that was 

the understanding of every Member of Congress I personally spoke 

to about it while we were working on this. 

Mr. POE. If the rights don’t have some enforcement or some sanction, then they are meaningless. 

Mr. BELOOF. Right. The history of this is that there was an advisory victims’ rights provision. And the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, as you may you remember, and the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing tried to attend the trial. And the victims’ attorneys, particularly Paul Cassell, professor at the University of Utah, 

worked with the United States Department of Justice, and they 

both tried to enforce the victims’ rights to attend that trial in the 

Oklahoma City bombing case. And it failed. And it failed because 

it was an advisory act. It didn’t give meaningful and enforceable 

rights. 

64 

And the problem with a mandamus standard of review is it risks 

the same thing. Yes, it is somewhat more enforceable, but there is 

no guarantee that it is enforceable. It depends on what the circuit 

court interprets as an extraordinary need for relief under mandamus standards. 

So we are not completely back where we started, but it was sort 

of three steps forward and, with this standard of review, it is two 

steps back again. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Ms. Howley, on the comments you made about victims’ rights 

taking place before the charge or after the charge or when they do 

take effect, what would you want Congress to do? 

Ms. HOWLEY. I would like Congress to make clear that their 

rights are not limited to post-indictment. Some of them would be 

logically limited by their language. For example, the right to be 

heard at a public court proceeding is inherently limited to post-indictment. However, some of these other rights, as I mentioned, 

should apply from the time the crime victim has filed a complaint. 

Mr. POE. So you would like us to just make that clear. 

Ms. HOWLEY. Yes, please. 

Mr. POE. Ms. Larence, did the GAO examine how the courts are 

doing in enforcing the victims’ rights under the CVRA? And are 

courts aware, are judges aware of their obligations under the act? 

Ms. LARENCE. We did look at a number of actions that the courts 

have taken to make the judges aware. And they have taken quite 

a few actions in terms of training. They revised the Judges Bench 

Book. They revised the rules for criminal procedures. They have 

made extensive training available, including over their closed-circuit TV network. So they have taken numerous steps to increase 

the awareness among the judiciary of those rights. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Rothenberg, it seems to me years ago there was a 

general philosophy among prosecutors that victims were just another witness in their case. Do you think that is still a philosophy 

in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I would say, Congressman, that that is not the 

case, if it ever was the case, among Federal prosecutors. The CVRA 

has certainly helped make everyone sensitive to their obligations to 

victims, but I believe that the Department and its employees have 

always taken victims’ rights seriously. And the CVRA has provided 

us with more opportunities and more guidance to do so. 

Mr. POE. Last question for Ms. Leary. The Federal notification, 

along with the State notification, are those systems merged? 

Ms. LEARY. No, they are not. 

Mr. POE. Do you think they should be? 

Ms. LEARY. I don’t think that would work because the Federal 

system is tied into the electronic case filing system that you have 

in the United States Federal district courts throughout the country, 

and the State systems are completely different. So I actually think 

that it is best if we tailor those systems to the States and then tailor the Federal. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

65 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rothenberg, have there been any cases where the Department has sought appellate review of district court decisions that 

limited victims’ rights under the CVRA? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. There have been quite a number. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. How have those cases been resolved? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I don’t have specific figures. I can give you 

some examples. 

One case in, I believe, 2006, we were prosecuting a case in Los 

Angeles. It was a Russian mob kidnapping and murder case. The 

victims’ family members wanted to sit in court, and the district 

judge refused to let them do so. We appealed that on a mandamus, 

and we got a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit, and we were 

able to get the victims in there. It was a very important aspect for 

the victims. 

I recall one of the victims had never heard the details of her husband’s last moments. And she was sitting in court while one of the 

defendants was on the stand, and she finally heard exactly what 

happened. And that was very important to her. She was quoted in 

the press subsequently as saying that. 

In a recent prosecution of an environmental crime in the district 

of Montana, we, again, wanted to have some of the victims present 

in court to hear testimony, and the district court refused. We successfully used the mandamus provision and got the appellate court 

to require that those victims were permitted to appear. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What was the court’s basis for excluding them? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I think, if I recall correctly, in both of those 

cases there was a concern that it would be inappropriate to have 

somebody who could be a witness hear the testimony prior to their 

own appearance on the witness stand. But we successfully argued 

that that was not a serious concern in those cases and the victims 

deserved to be present during the prosecution. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In your testimony, you noted that the Department’s Victims’ Rights Ombudsman has investigated 25 victims’ 

complaints about the Department of Justice personnel. Can you describe the issues raised in those complaints, and how were they resolved? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I believe virtually all of those were resolved to 

the satisfaction of the victims. In many cases, those were simple errors, such as at some point someone’s name fell off the list of notifications for a restitution order or something like that. Many of them 

were clerical errors which, once the VRO and the system got into 

place, it worked exactly as it should and we resolved them. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Leary, can you tell us how the Department developed the nationwide Victim Notification System? 

Ms. LEARY. Actually, the nationwide—do you mean the State or 

the Federal one? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Federal. 

Ms. LEARY. The Federal one. It was done in conjunction with the 

Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, because the U.S. Attorney’s Office, you know, actually prosecute most of these cases. And, if I recall correctly, there was kind of a needs assessment done first, and 

then they had some technology consultants in there. And when we 

66 

start talking technology, that is the end of my expertise. But I can 

try to get you some information. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And does that Federal Victim Notification System have interoperability with the many State notification systems? 

Ms. LEARY. No, it does not. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And is there an effort to make that interoperable? Is that a desirable or undesirable thing to do? 

Ms. LEARY. I am not sure it would be desirable since we are connected to a different—we use different mechanisms. And we are 

going through the Federal courts’ electronic case filing system, and 

that is not applicable to the States. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Either Mr. Rothenberg or Ms. Leary, Ms. Howley indicated that, 

if Federal charges are brought, many victims request protection. If 

someone requests protection during the proceedings, what happens? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I believe that sort of request would go through 

our offices. I think it would depend upon the particulars of the 

case, but the agents investigating the case and the Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys are familiar with exactly what would happen. Sometimes, for example, that means providing emergency housing that 

would be a secure place for the victim. There are many different 

operations that we could take to secure the victim’s safety. 

Mr. SCOTT. And would that protection be provided pre- indictment? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. It would, because I really should point out 

that the CVRA is only one of the ways that we help victims. For 

example, you may be aware that, under 42 USC 10607, we also 

have obligations to the victims, including protection, including notice of what is going on in the investigation, the status of the case. 

So we provide a full range of services to victims, potential victims, even prior to an indictment, throughout the course of investigation and prosecution. It is a little bit of a—we shouldn’t focus 

too much on simply the CVRA. 

Mr. SCOTT. You indicated problems in sentencing, the victim impact in a particular sentence, that the judge ruled it inadmissible 

and struck it. I thought that just about any conduct was relevant 

in sentencing, even acquitted conduct. It doesn’t have to specifically 

even be related to the case. 

Is that what you are arguing on appeal, that if you have a victim, they have the right to testify, it doesn’t have to be targeted 

just for this? I mean, they have other kind of conduct related? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. In the particular case at issue, it is a possession case of child pornography. And what the judge said was that 

the victim impact statements were not relevant to the conduct 

charged that he pleaded guilty to. 

I think that is a good point you raise. But we want to establish 

the fact that the victim—the statement of the victim is in fact relevant. Because the possession of child pornography is part of the 

demand for the sexual abuse that occurred; and so we are estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:38 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\092909\52546.000 HJUD1 PsN: 52546
67 

lishing the fact that the child in these circumstances was, in fact, 

a victim of the crime. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Now, a lot of people have kind of gone back and forth about when 

the rights under this Act began, whether they began at indictment, 

pre-indictment, whether you need charges actually filed. Ms. Leary, 

you indicated a situation that sounds like, the terrorist situation, 

that sounds like that assistance was provided even before charges 

were brought, is that right? 

Ms. LEARY. That is right. As Mr. Rothenberg said, the Department of Justice works with victims in a variety of ways; and many 

of those ways involve pre-indictment assistance to the victims. My 

own personal experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C. is 

that we provide services to victims at every stage. And you can’t 

meet all the needs, but you do your very best to do so. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, some of these needs that you are describing 

seemed unrelated to court proceedings. Are we able to provide 

those kinds of services on a routine basis? 

Ms. LEARY. We are not able to provide that full panoply of services on a routine basis. This was a very extraordinary case. And 

in many cases we do make referrals for services. So it is really incumbent on the prosecutors to, and the victim witness assistance 

units in the offices, to know the community resources that are 

available and to help connect victims with those services. So while 

you are not providing them yourself, you are making an appropriate referral and kind of connecting the dots for the victims. 

Mr. SCOTT. And my final question is just simply whether or not 

providing assistance to the victims has at all complicated the prosecution of cases? 

Ms. LEARY. Providing assistance, does it complicate prosecution? 

Mr. SCOTT. Compliance with the law, has that complicated the 

prosecution? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I would say that it is an additional duty that 

our prosecutors have to and our investigative agents have to take. 

But to the extent that it has required more effort is one that we 

fully accept upon ourselves as part of our obligations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. It has provided more efforts. But has it—I 

mean, you can see in some cases, if it is a request for a timely trial 

before you are prepared, for example, theoretically, it could complicate the prosecution. Have you seen any complications in prosecutions? Have you been unable to aggressively and effectively 

prosecute defendants because of any compliance with this law? 

And I just say one of the arguments against the constitutional 

amendment is that you are impending on defendant’s rights. And 

I guess my question is whether that is theoretical or real? Are you 

unable to prosecute people because of compliance with this law, or 

are any rights of defendants compromised because you have to 

comply with the law? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. There are certainly circumstances where finding the right balance in the course of a prosecution between our obligations to the constitutional rights of defendants and the rights 

of victims does happen, and we do our best to work through those. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Like what? Like what? Do you have some examples? 

68 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I cannot think of any examples. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you could provide some—let’s go through and ask 

the U.S. Attorneys whether or not there have been any complications arising—how the law has complicated—other than they have 

got more work to do, you know, just provide that—do you cure that 

with funding for staff? Or whether or not there has been any compromising of their ability to do their jobs because they have to comply with the Act, whether it has complicated the prosecution at all. 

Because it is a statute, you can’t impinge on defendants’ rights, 

whether or not there have been any complications that arise? And 

if you would just check around and see if there are examples, I 

would appreciate it. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Rothenberg, Ms. Howley mentioned that there were 

cases where the victim was not notified prior to charging when a 

plea bargain had been worked out. Are those cases where the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office is working with some cooperating individual and 

working some kind of deal to get somebody else? Are those the type 

of cases that that would apply to, in your opinion? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I believe that is one example. I think that is 

correct. 

There are circumstances in which a pre-indictment plea agreement is in the best interest of all the parties involved in order to 

successfully conclude a prosecution, and sometimes it is not possible to provide pre-indictment notice to the victims. 

Mr. POE. And one other comment that she made. Do you think 

Congress needs to clarify as to when these rights actually take effect pre-indictment, at indictment or someplace? Do you think Congress has that responsibility to make it clear to everybody? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Well, as a number of the witnesses have said, 

we have taken a position regarding that in terms of the policy matter as to whether the law should be changed. We are happy to work 

with the Subcommittee on finding it. 

Mr. POE. Okay. You will follow whatever it is. 

Other than money, which in my opinion it is appallingly low for 

this legislation, embarrassingly low in how little money is applied 

to this Act, what is one thing each of you would like to see now 

5 years down the road—here we are 5 years since the legislation 

was enacted—to improve the law in any aspect, other than money? 

We will just go down the row. Ms. Larence. 

Ms. LARENCE. In our report, we identify a number of areas where 

the courts are still trying to interpret some of the provisions of the 

Act. And it is fairly early, and there is not a body of case law on 

those issues. So GAO did not take a position on whether or not 

Congress needs to change the law to address those issues. In the 

one case that we did, though, it was pretty clear from all of those 

involved they would like the Congress to clarify how the law applies to the District of Columbia. 

Mr. POE. Okay. Mr. Rothenberg. 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Uh—— 

Mr. POE. You are satisfied with the way it is? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. We are—the Department of Justice is fully 

committed to enforcing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. We believe 

that we are doing our best efforts right now, and we look forward 

69 

to working with the Committee on any changes that you deem appropriate. 

Mr. POE. Okay. Ms. Leary. 

Ms. LEARY. I don’t know that I would recommend any specific 

changes to the statute, but I do hope and I expect that as time goes 

by the awareness of victims’ rights, the importance of protecting 

them and the mechanisms, the legal mechanisms actually available 

to victims will become more and more widely recognized and utilized. And I do think we will see that happen. We have seen that 

in other areas of victims’ rights. 

Mr. POE. Professor. 

Mr. BELOOF. Standard of review—can I have two? 

Mr. POE. Yes. If they didn’t have any, you can have one for each 

one of them. 

Mr. BELOOF. Standard of review and the concern Ms. Howley 

mentioned, making clear that victims can access certain of these 

rights prior to indictment. 

Mr. POE. And I would like for you to turn that information over 

to the Chairman regarding those statistics on review, whether it is 

appeals or whether it is our mandamus. 

Mr. BELOOF. I will do that. I can tell the Chair that there are 

no cases under the CVRA that have found that the CVRA violates 

criminal defendants rights, no reported cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me just say this. I would not be surprised about 

that, because it is a statute, not a constitutional amendment. And 

I think that is one of the reasons we want it to be a statute, we 

can be a little more aggressive and didn’t have to worry about that 

point. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. Ms. Howley. 

Ms. HOWLEY. Along with the points that I have already raised 

in my oral testimony, I believe that the most important thing is to 

make the Department’s Victims’ Rights Compliance Program effective. The GAO report went into that in great detail, that the placement of the office and the current procedures are inadequate for 

the enforcement of victims’ rights. 

We have seen at the State level that the existence of a meaningful compliance program makes all the difference, even though sanctions are rarely used. Just the existence makes people take the 

training more seriously, makes them pay more attention to the protocols and the implementation. It is my understanding that the 

working group is making some changes to the victims’ rights ombudsman’s office, but we have not seen those yet. 

Mr. POE. I want to thank all of you for your work for victims. 

They don’t have a high-dollar lobbyist up here in Washington, D.C.; 

and so it is people like you that look out for them. I want to thank 

you. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further 

questions. 

70 

Mr. SCOTT. I just had one other question. Does each U.S. Attorney have a victim witness coordinator in each U.S. Attorney’s Office? 

Ms. LEARY. Yes. Every U.S. Attorney’s Office has a victim witness coordinator. 

Mr. SCOTT. And in the Eastern District of Virginia where you 

have got an Alexandria, Richmond, Norfolk, and Newport News office, would there be one in each office or one for the whole district? 

Ms. LEARY. I think in Virginia each one does. I can’t be sure, but 

we will get back to you on that. 

I guess I should correct it. Almost every single office has a victim 

witness coordinator. There are some really small field offices out 

there, but the vast majority do have victim witness coordinators. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Mr. Beloof and Ms. Howley, how effective are 

these coordinators? 

Mr. BELOOF. Well, I think they are pretty effective. I think their 

hearts and professional commitment is largely in the mission. So 

I think it is a good thing, and it is good that they are in those offices. They are, of course, not attorneys. They are people who work 

for the attorneys. So it is a bit of an awkward relationship. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, one of the things that we have to recognize is 

some of this is labor intensive. Coordinating, letting people know, 

and taking the time to treat people with the dignity that you would 

expect in a court system takes time; and if you have somebody 

whose job is just that, the job will get done. A U.S. Attorney with 

a stack full of files may cut people a little short, but if you have 

somebody whose job it is to take some time and describe when the 

hearing is coming up, when to show up, what to expect, that could 

be helpful. If you have enough of them. 

Ms. HOWLEY. Exactly. I would say that the victim witness coordinators—and, also, at the investigative stage, the victim assistance—are what make victims’ rights workable for the criminal justice system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas is here. Do 

you have any questions, Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would, but I would yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman is done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. I thought the gentleman just came in. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just landed, so I thank the witnesses for their testimony and 

wanted to make sure that at least represented to all of you as witnesses of my interests in this area. 

And let me ask Susan Howley, who is with the National Center 

for Victims of Crime, if she could—though it may be repetitive, and 

I apologize to you—but let me just make this my bearing question, 

if you will, as to the major legal legislative need and fix that victims do need in making sure that they are counted in the sentencing process, that they are compensated, and what kind of Federal laws are needed in contrast to what happens on the State 

level, which I know that the State of Texas has an active victims’ 

rights compensation process. 

Ms. HOWLEY. I would say that creating a meaningful compliance 

program or a meaningful avenue to enforce victims’ rights is the 

71 

most important thing that can be done. The CVRA has taken a 

number of important steps in that direction with the clarification 

of the applicability of the enforcement procedures to cases brought 

in District of Columbia Superior Court. And with changes to the 

Department of Justice’s victims’ rights ombudsman, the Federal 

system could be a model for the States, many of whom do not yet 

have enforcement programs. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So do you think the Federal system needs to 

be enhanced to emphasize or fill in the gaps where States do not 

have a meaningful program? 

Ms. HOWLEY. No. The Federal system could not be expanded to 

enforce these State victims’ rights. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Or to step in where there are no State victims’ 

rights structures, the States that do not have them? 

Ms. HOWLEY. Right. The States will have to create their own enforcement proceedings. Unless we went to a Federal victims’ rights 

constitutional amendment, then the Federal system could step in 

and help enforce victims’ rights at the State level. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So what do you think should be the effort in 

encouraging States, since we think it is a priority, to implement 

their own structures? 

Ms. HOWLEY. The first step would be to use the funding authorized in the CVRA to promote compliance or to promote the enforcement of victims’ rights in the courts to fully fund that grant program. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what do you think and how do you think 

the victims’ rights program are treating children who are victims? 

Is there sufficient protection for them in the process? 

Ms. HOWLEY. Victims’ rights generally attach to the parent or 

guardian of a minor victim. There are other rights outside of the 

CVRA and outside of standard bills of rights that provide alternate 

procedures that facilitate the participation of child victims and witnesses and protect them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Professor Beloof, would you like to comment on whether or not 

the structure that we have, it relates to victims who happen to be 

children, and if you have any contrary views about this victims’ 

rights structure? 

Mr. BELOOF. The CVRA in relationship to children is drafted so 

that—let’s say the parent is the perpetrator. The court can appoint 

a different representative for that child or counsel for that child. 

So we were conscious of that at the time it was drafted. 

In regards to your other structural question, the idea in the statute at CVRA was to use this funding to create incentives in States 

to come up with a similar victims’ rights scheme. That is, this was 

to serve as a national model. It stands as the most progressive, forward-looking civil rights provision for victims that exist, but without the funding—and that is a central problem we have been talking about here—there is little funding. There is little incentive for 

States to change. 

I was involved in my own State’s change, probably because I was 

there and had a relationship with the Attorney General and we 

now have enforceable victims’ rights. I was fortunate enough to be 

engaged with a person who had substantial assets who funded a 

72 

similar kind of change in California. But, to my knowledge, since 

the CVRA was enacted and with this limited funding, those are the 

only two States that have tried to emulate the Federal model in the 

last 5 years. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for this hearing. 

I think what I am gleaning, for at least two witnesses, it may 

be—might even be with the same perspective or different perspective, is that we need to ramp up the voice for this legislation that 

would include funding. And we need to recognize, as we look at 

some very difficult times in America, crime rates soaring, some 

going down in some cities, which we recognize, no matter what 

level the crime rates are, the victims exist. And what comes to 

mind in particular is the City of Chicago that certainly has had its 

share of crisis with respect to youth violence. 

So I do want to thank the Chairman. It is something that we will 

look at I know individually and as this Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesies. I yield back. 

I thank the witnesses for their indulgence. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

The gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Goodlatte, do you have any 

other questions? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

Members may have additional written questions we will forward to 

you and ask you to answer as promptly as you can in order that 

the answers may be part of the record. 

The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for the submission of additional materials; and, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(73) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PEDRO PIERLUISI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM PUERTO RICO, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful that you have convened this hearing 

today. 

In our criminal justice system, the person who has been most affected by a crimethe victim-plays no formal role in the legal proceeding connected to his or her case. 

While the government prosecutes the case and the alleged offender defends against 

the charges, the victim is left in a legal ‘‘no man’s land.’’ 

When I was Attorney General of Puerto Rico, I often met with victims who felt 

disconnected from the prosecution of their cases. Although I tried to involve victims 

as much as possible, it was clear to me that more formal mechanisms were needed 

to promote their participation. 

At the federal level, Congress recognized this problem and passed the Crime Victims Rights Act in 2004. The law provided federal crime victims with eight rights, 

including the right to be protected from the accused; the right to be notified of, and 

to participate in, court proceedings; and the right to confer with the prosecution. 

These rights re-oriented the relationship between victims and our criminal justice 

system by providing victims with an opportunity to be involved with the prosecution 

of their cases if they so chose. 

The GAO released a report last December that evaluated the implementation of 

the Crime Victims Act. That report found that the Justice Department and the federal courts have made significant efforts to implement the Act, and I applaud the 

Department and the courts for the steps it has taken to date. That said, there appears to be room for improvement both in the Act’s implementation and in designing 

methods to monitor compliance with the Act. For example, a number of victims were 

not aware of their rights or of their ability to file an internal grievance when their 

rights were not being respected. 

I welcome our witnesses’ thoughts on the GAO’s recommendations and, more 

broadly, on how we can improve implementation of the Act and better ensure that 

all victims are able to assert their rights. I look forward to having a productive dialogue today, and I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony. 

f 

74 


A-1.eps
75 


A-2.eps
76 

Æ 


A-3.eps