Crime Victims’ Rights Report 2022

Summary – uscourts.gov

This is the eighteenth report to Congress on crime victims’ rights under § 104(a) 

of the Justice for All Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-405. Section 104(a) requires the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) to report “the number of times 

that a right established in Chapter 237 of title 18, United States Code, is asserted in a 

criminal case and the relief requested is denied and, with respect to each such denial, the 

reason for such denial, as well as the number of times a mandamus action is brought 

pursuant to Chapter 237 of title 18, and the result reached.” Title I of the Justice for All 

Act of 2004 is commonly referred to as the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) and is 

codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

During fiscal year 2022, more than 54,900 criminal cases were filed in the federal 

trial courts, involving more than 68,400 defendants. For that year, the AO received 

reports from the appellate courts on one mandamus action brought per the provisions of 

the CVRA and identified one appellate court case and nine district court cases that meet 

the statute’s reporting criteria. Summaries of those mandamus and trial court actions 

follow, including the reasons provided for the decisions in each of the cases. Related 

cases are combined into a single summary.

In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Wild

v. United States Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Fla., 142 S. Ct. 1188 (2022). Petitioner, an 

alleged victim of child sexual abuse and sex trafficking, brought a civil suit alleging that 

the government violated the CVRA by failing to confer with her before negotiating and 

entering into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The district court 

found that the government had infringed her rights under the CVRA, but while remedies 

were being considered, Epstein died. The district court then dismissed the lawsuit on the 

grounds that Epstein’s death mooted any claims related to the NPA, that the court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider the NPA’s application to Epstein’s coconspirators, and that 

petitioner was not entitled to injunctive relief because she had not proven any ongoing or 

future threats of CVRA violations. Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied the petition, holding that crime 

victims’ rights under the CVRA do not attach until proceedings are initiated against 

defendants. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. The petition was denied.

United States v. Thompson, No. CR19-159-RSL, 2022 WL 841178 (W.D. Wash.

Mar. 21, 2022). Defendant was charged with allegedly hacking the financial institution 

Capitol One and stealing data containing the personal details (consumer information) of 

more than 100,000,000 individuals. Defense counsel asked the court to compel the 

Government to provide to defense a complete copy of consumer information containing 

unredacted personal details of the victims. In opposing this motion, the Government 

sought a protective order pursuant to the CVRA to protect the dignity and privacy of the 

victims by prohibiting production to defense counsel of a copy of more than 100,000,000 

victims’ unredacted personal information. The district court denied the motion, 

concluding that the defense is entitled to a copy of the Capitol One data pursuant to Fed. 
Crim. P. 16(d)(1). The Government argued that production should be limited in 

recognition of the privacy interests of the victims and due to the increased risk of 

dissemination stemming from allowing the Office of the Federal Public Defenders to 

possess a copy of the Capitol One data. The Court stated that it is sensitive to the victims’ 

privacy concerns but was not persuaded that restricting the defense team’s access to the 

Capitol One data is the correct approach. Redaction is an appropriate solution that 

respects the victims’ right to protection, dignity, and privacy. Regarding the increased 

risk of dissemination, the Court was not persuaded that this risk is sufficiently grave to 

merit limiting the defense’s access to the data so long as the data is held on a computer 

that is both not connected to the internet and in a secure location.

United States v. Addaquay, No. 1:20-cr-00126-LMM-JSA (N.D. Ga. Nov. 19,

2021). The Government sought relief to provide alternative victim notification pursuant 

to the CVRA, arguing that there were more than 5,000 direct and proximate victims of 

wire fraud. The district court denied the requested relief, holding that the number of 

crime victims did not make it impractical to afford all crime victims their rights.

Granting the relief would require the Court to find there were thousands of potential 

victims in the case when the Government only provided conclusory statements regarding 

the number of victims and did not establish the exact number.

United States v. Jonathan Markovich, et al, No. 0:21-cr-60020-WPD (S.D. Fl.

Mar. 21, 2022). Petitioners, victims of a conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, moved 

to assert full and timely restitution pursuant to the CVRA. The district court denied the 

motion. To grant restitution, there must be a direct and proximate link between the 

defendants' behavior and the damages sought. The government argued that the losses are 

directly related to the victim’s death and for purposes of restitution the victim does not 

have to be the target of the offense. In rejecting this argument, the court stated, “I’m not 

comfortable ordering restitution in the way that this indictment was filed. If the 

government charged in the indictment the death and there was evidence at the trial, it 

would be a different situation.”

United States v. Neel, No. 21-CR-00362-GKF, 2022 WL 736100 (N.D. Okla. Mar.

10, 2022). The Government asked the court to redact the first and last names of an

alleged aggravated sexual abuse victim and of a Rule 404(b) witness for the prosecution 

and refer to them only by their initials in transcripts of proceedings. The government also 

asked the court to redact the alleged victim’s address, which is the location of the alleged 

crimes. The district court denied the request. Whether judicial records and other caserelated information should be sealed or otherwise withheld from the public is a matter left 

to the discretion of the court. Thus, when documents are used to determine a litigants’ 

substantive legal rights, a strong presumption of access attaches, and the party seeking to 

restrict access bears the burden to demonstrate “some significant interest that outweighs 

the presumption.” The government sought to redact this information from transcripts of 

closing arguments in a criminal jury trial. The court found that such proceedings are 

highly relevant to the judicial process and used to determine substantive legal rights, so a 

strong presumption of access attaches. The Government argued that pursuant to the 

CVRA, crime victims’ right to be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and 

privacy outweighed the presumption of access. In rejecting this argument, the court 
stated, “the CVRA does not require that documents disclosing victim or witness identities 

be filed under seal or otherwise redacted.”

United States v. August, No. EP-21-CR-00912-FM, 2022 WL 780583 (W.D.Tex.

Mar. 10, 2022). Defendant who was indicted for crimes related to the distribution of a 

controlled substance causing death or serious bodily injury moved to prohibit the 

Government from referring to any party, witness, or decedent as a “victim,” arguing that 

doing so would unduly prejudice him. In response, the Government argued that 

prohibiting it from referring to individuals as “victims” would violate rights guaranteed 

under the CVRA, that referring to certain patients and decedents as “victims” is not 

unfairly prejudicial because the terms are meant to distinguish between individuals 

involved in the trial, and that the term “victim” is legally defined and does not create an 

inference as to Defendant’s guilt. The district granted Defendant’s motion, finding that 

the definition of “crime victim” in the CVRA implies that a crime has been committed. 

The Court stated that core issues in this case include not just whether the Defendant 

distributed controlled substances, but whether his alleged distribution caused death or 

serious bodily injury to the individuals the Government seeks to address as victims.

Therefore, any reference to an individual as a “victim” is unfairly prejudicial, as it 

encourages the jury to find guilt due to the implication that a crime has already been 

committed by Defendant.

Medina v. Shinn, No. CV-21-00889-PHX-GMS, 2022 WL 325707 (D. Ariz. Feb.

3, 2022). Defendant convicted of first-degree murder filed a notice of intent to seek 

habeas corpus relief. In response, the director of the state department of corrections, filed 

a motion to preclude defendant from directly contacting any victims in the case, arguing 

that the CVRA definition of victims in federal habeas proceedings arising from state 

crime convictions includes any “family member or other lawful representative” of the 

person killed, thereby granting this person the right to be treated fairly and with respect 

for their dignity and privacy. The district court denied the respondent’s motion for lack 

of standing to enforce these rights. The court recognize, that although the CVRA grants 

standing, in general, to the government to enforce victims' rights, it grants such standing 

in habeas proceedings only to “the crime victim or the crime victim’s lawful 

representative and the attorney for the Government, where the government does not 

include state employees and agencies. However, the respondent’s lack of standing did not 

prohibit the court from considering whether to require that the request to contact the 

victims be channeled through respondent’s counsel. To further the victims’ CVRA rights 

to have their dignity and privacy respected, the parties agreed on a procedure presented 

by the court whereby defense counsel can mail or email a victim in the case and ask to 

interview that person after notifying the court of this and submitting the proposed text of 

the request for review. The court also directed defense counsel to make reasonable 

efforts to determine whether an attorney represents a victim of interest and, if so, have 

defense counsel channel the request to interview through that attorney.
Burns v. Shinn, No. CV-21-1173-PHX-SPL, 2021 WL 5280601 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12,

2021). Defendant convicted of first-degree murder filed a notice of intent to seek habeas 

corpus relief. In response, the director of the state department of corrections moved to 

preclude the defendant’s counsel from directly contacting any victims in the case. The 

district court denied respondent’s motion. Although the CVRA grants standing, in 

general, to the government to enforce victims’ rights, it grants such standing in habeas 

proceedings only to “the crime victim or the crime victim’s lawful representative and the 

attorney for the Government, where the government does not include state employees and 

agencies.” Inherent authority to regulate the proceeding and enter orders necessary to 

achieve the orderly and expeditious resolution of its docket does not necessarily give the 

court the inherent authority to proscribe otherwise lawful conduct outside the courtroom 

by the defense team. Moreover, even if the court had inherent authority to grant the 

requested relief, doing so was not necessary at that time, for the CVRA already specifies 

that state crime victims in federal habeas cases have the right to be treated with fairness 

and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy. Respondent did not demonstrate 

that the protections of the CVRA are insufficient to protect state crime victims during 

federal habeas proceedings, and no evidence showed that the victim themselves requested 

the protection described.

Miller v. Shinn, No. CV-21-00992-PHX-ROS, 2021 WL 4503461 (D. Ariz. Oct. 1,

2021). Defendant convicted of first-degree murder filed a notice of intent to seek habeas 

corpus relief. In response, the director of the state department of corrections moved to 

preclude defendant’s counsel from directly contacting any victims in the case unless 

contact was initiated through respondent’s counsel. The district court denied 

respondent’s motion. Although the government may assert a victim’s rights in a federal 

criminal trial, only “the crime victim or the crime victim’s lawful representative” may 

enforce the CVRA in federal habeas proceedings. The director of the state department of 

corrections was not the crime victim’s lawful representative, and the court cannot assume 

that respondent’s interests and the victim’s interest are coextensive given that no victim 

had expressed a desire to avoid direct contact with defendant’s counsel. In addition, the 

court’s inherent authority to regulate the proceeding and enter orders necessary to achieve 

the orderly and expeditious resolution of its docket does not necessarily give the court the 

inherent authority to proscribe otherwise lawful conduct outside the courtroom by 

defendant’s counsel. The court further noted that even if the court had inherent authority 

to grant the requested relief, doing so was not necessary at that time. The CVRA already 

specifies that state crime victims in federal habeas cases have the right to be treated with 

fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy. Respondent did not show 

that the protections of the CVRA are insufficient to protect state crime victims during 

federal habeas proceedings, and no evidence established that the victim requested such 

protection. Ultimately, under the CVRA, the victims are entitled to the “right to be 

reasonably protected from the accused” and to be “treated with fairness and with respect 

for the victim’s dignity and privacy.” Victims can voluntarily decide to have no contact 

with defense counsel, and counsel must respect that decision.
United States v. Rechnitz, No. 16 CR. 389 (AKH), 2021 WL 5232395 (S.D.N.Y.

Nov. 9, 2021). After a district court declined to review a victim’s motion for restitution 

under the CVRA on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion because 

defendant’s appeal from his sentence was pending, the victim petitioned the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the district 

court to consider the motion. The Second Circuit returned jurisdiction to the district

court with a mandate to “reconsider its assessment of the defendant’s culpability and 

financial conditions in light of new evidence presented by the victim and any other 

relevant factors.” The defendant argued that such a review was untimely, as motions for 

reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after a court order, and the victim’s motion 

was made more than 60 days after the defendant’s sentencing. The district court ruled 

that the victim’s motion for restitution was filed pursuant to the CVRA, not as a motion 

for reconsideration, and thus was not time-bound. The CVRA guarantees to crime 

victims “full and timely restitution as provided in law.” The CVRA does not impose a 

date by which a crime victim must make a motion for full and timely restitution.

Although the CVRA permits a victim to re-open a plea or sentence only if the victim 

petitions the court for a writ of mandamus within 14 days, the statute provides that the 

limits on relief does not affect the victim’s right to restitution. Upon reconsidering its 

assessment of the defendant’s culpability and financial condition, the court ruled that the 

defendant did not provide a reliable account of his financial condition, which prevented 

the court from imposing a rational payment schedule. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the 

victim against defendant in the full amount of the victim’s remaining loss.