{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "681-1",
    "date": "06/26/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 681-1 Filed 06/26/22 Page 3 of 7\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. Kate has a statutory right to be heard under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.\n\nThe CVRA guarantees crime victims the right to \"reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... sentencing.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). This is the right of a victim to give what is commonly referred to as a \"victim impact statement.\" See generally United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). Various courts have held that the CVRA right to be reasonably heard guarantees victims the right to make an in-court statement.\n\nAs one court has explained, \"[a]t a sentencing hearing, the other participants will speak directly to the judge. Read against this backdrop, the CVRA commands that a victim should be treated equally with the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor, rather than turned into a 'faceless stranger.'\" Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d at 1348 (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,825 (1991)).\n\nThe Crime Victim's Rights Act (\"CVRA\") defines the term \"crime victim\" as a \"person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ....\" 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e). This definition was based on earlier restitution statutes, which \"all demonstrate a clarion congressional intent to provide restitution to as many victims and in as many cases as possible.\" United States v. Martin, 128 F.3d 1188, 1190 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoted in United States v. Kamuvaka, 719 F.Supp.2d 469, 475 (E.D. Pa. 2010)). Thus, in relying on these far-reaching statutes to craft the CVRA, Congress used \"an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected.\" 150 Cong. Rec. S4270 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added) (statement of Sen. Kyl, agreed to by Sen. Feinstein). Congress understood that it was extending rights to \"literally millions of people\"—i.e., victims who were being denied rights in the federal criminal justice process. 150 Cong. Rec. S42604 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl).\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00010739",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 681-1 Filed 06/26/22 Page 3 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Kate has a statutory right to be heard under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The CVRA guarantees crime victims the right to \"reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... sentencing.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). This is the right of a victim to give what is commonly referred to as a \"victim impact statement.\" See generally United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). Various courts have held that the CVRA right to be reasonably heard guarantees victims the right to make an in-court statement.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As one court has explained, \"[a]t a sentencing hearing, the other participants will speak directly to the judge. Read against this backdrop, the CVRA commands that a victim should be treated equally with the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor, rather than turned into a 'faceless stranger.'\" Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d at 1348 (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,825 (1991)).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Crime Victim's Rights Act (\"CVRA\") defines the term \"crime victim\" as a \"person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ....\" 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e). This definition was based on earlier restitution statutes, which \"all demonstrate a clarion congressional intent to provide restitution to as many victims and in as many cases as possible.\" United States v. Martin, 128 F.3d 1188, 1190 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoted in United States v. Kamuvaka, 719 F.Supp.2d 469, 475 (E.D. Pa. 2010)). Thus, in relying on these far-reaching statutes to craft the CVRA, Congress used \"an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected.\" 150 Cong. Rec. S4270 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added) (statement of Sen. Kyl, agreed to by Sen. Feinstein). Congress understood that it was extending rights to \"literally millions of people\"—i.e., victims who were being denied rights in the federal criminal justice process. 150 Cong. Rec. S42604 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010739",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kate",
      "Sen. Kyl",
      "Sen. Feinstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Utah",
      "Tennessee",
      "Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/26/22",
      "Apr. 22, 2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 681-1",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)",
      "405 F.Supp.2d 1341",
      "501 U.S. 808",
      "128 F.3d 1188",
      "719 F.Supp.2d 469",
      "150 Cong. Rec. S4270",
      "150 Cong. Rec. S42604",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010739"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, specifically discussing the rights of crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}