2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 93 victims to those who have been “directly and proximately harmed.”!°? Finally, the formulation requires some federal officer or employee to evaluate the evidence and reach the conclusion that a federal offense has been committed that harmed the person in question. This determination responds to the observation by the District Court for the Eastern District of New York that the CVRA “cannot be read to include the victims of uncharged crimes that the government has not even contemplated.”'°? At the same time, such a formulation obviously does not require the filing of formal criminal charges, or even the preparation of formal criminal charges. Instead, all that is required is for the Department to recognize that a person is a putative victim of a federal offense, just as all that is required for the mailing of a target letter to a subpoenaed suspected criminal, is recognition that he is a putative defendant in a federal case. B. APPLYING THE TEST TO THE EPSTEIN CASE To illustrate how the test would operate, it is useful to examine the facts of the Epstein case. Applying the proposed test to that case produces straightforward answers, which suggests that the test would be workable in practice. From 2001 to 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than thirty minor girls in his mansion, including Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two.'* Initially, of course, his acts of abuse were secret, unknown to law enforcement. During that period of time, the victims would not have had rights under the CVRA. In 2006, Epstein’s acts of abuse came to the attention of the Palm Beach Police Department, which began investigating the case.'?? At this point, once again, the victims would not have had rights under the proposed CVRA test. The CVRA extends rights in the federal criminal justice process. A state investigation does not trigger the CVRA (although it may trigger certain state law protections, as discussed below).!*° At some point in 200