CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER
BP
Crime Victims’ Rights Violated
22 Corporate Crime Reporter 19, May 7, 2008
The rights of BP’s crime victims were violated by federal prosecutors
in Houston when they reached a plea bargain with BP Products in the Texas City
oil refinery explosion case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
today.
But the appeals court refused to block the plea deal, instead remanding it back to the district court.
The March 23, 2005 explosion killed 15 and injured 170.
“While we are gratified that the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that the U.S. Attorney illegally violated the rights of the victims, we are shocked at the decision of the 5th Circuit panel that the government can illegally violate the rights of criminal victims as specified in an Act of Congress with impunity,” said David Perry, an attorney for the BP victims. “These victims were first injured by BP illegal conduct, then again by the illegal actions of the U.S. Attorney in violating their victims rights under the congressional statute, then again by a plea bargain imposing no more than a slap on the wrist to BP, and now once again by a ruling effectively approving the illegal conduct of the U.S. Attorney and negating an Act of Congress.”
Perry promised to seek further appellate relief on these issues.
“The Fifth Circuit has sent this case back to the district court to carefully consider the victims’ objections,” Perry said. “We are confident that when those objections are considered, this sweetheart plea bargain will be ultimately rejected.”
In its decision, the Fifth Circuit found that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had violated the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) in reaching a plea bargain with BP.
In October 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Houston had obtained a secret, ex parte order from the district court relieving the office of any need to notify the victims.
The Fifth Circuit held that “it was contrary to the provisions of the CVRA for the [district] court to permit and employ the ex parte proceedings that have taken place – proceedings that have no precedent, as far as we can determine.”
Instead, the Fifth Circuit stated that the U.S. Attorney’s office “should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims’ views on the possible details of a plea bargain.”
The Fifth Circuit concluded that “the unfortunate fact is that the plea agreement was reached without the victims’ being able to participate by conferring in advance.”
But
the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings
in which the district court “will fully consider the victims’ objections
and concerns in deciding whether the plea agreement should be accepted.”
Corporate
Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
202.737.1680