## Facts

- A BP refinery explosion in Texas City, Texas killed 15 people and injured more than 170, prompting a federal criminal investigation.
- Before charges were filed, the government moved ex parte under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) for procedures to manage victims’ rights, asserting it was impracticable to consult victims before a plea due to the number of victims and potential media effects on negotiations.
- The district court issued a sealed order barring the government from notifying victims about a potential plea agreement until after it was executed, while directing notice and an opportunity for victims to exercise CVRA rights before entry of the guilty plea.
- The government later filed a criminal information against BP and executed a plea agreement; once public, the government mailed notices to victims about upcoming proceedings and their right to be heard.
- Victims sought to appear and urged the district court to reject the plea agreement (or require additional sentencing procedures), arguing the government violated CVRA rights to timely notice and a reasonable opportunity to confer with prosecutors before the plea was finalized.
- The district court acknowledged the government did not confer with victims before finalizing the plea but declined to reject the plea agreement.
- Victims petitioned the Fifth Circuit for mandamus under the CVRA to obtain relief from the district court’s ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the government and district court violated the CVRA by preventing victims from receiving timely notice and conferring with prosecutors during plea negotiations.
2. Whether mandamus should issue under the CVRA to require rejection or vacatur of the plea agreement based on the asserted CVRA violations.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held that the government’s approach violated the CVRA by effectively precluding victims from exercising their rights during the plea-negotiation stage.
- The court denied mandamus because petitioners did not show a clear and indisputable right to the specific remedy of undoing or rejecting the plea agreement.
- The court applied the traditional mandamus framework, requiring (1) no other adequate means of relief, (2) a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ, and (3) appropriateness of the writ under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- The CVRA provides victims rights to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of public proceedings, a reasonable right to confer with the government’s attorney, and a right to be reasonably heard at plea and sentencing proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
- The CVRA’s “multiple victims” provision permits courts to craft reasonable procedures when full participation is impracticable, but it does not authorize nullifying victims’ statutory rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2).
- Mandamus under the CVRA remains an extraordinary remedy; even when a CVRA violation is found, relief requires a clear and indisputable entitlement to the particular remedy sought and a discretionary judgment that the writ is appropriate.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit recognized that excluding victims from plea negotiations violated the CVRA, but it denied mandamus because the victims were not clearly entitled to the specific remedy of setting aside or rejecting an already negotiated plea agreement.


In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008)