Epstein Secrets

ir feelings at the voting polls."); cf. Chenev v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) ("The decision to

e citizens with "honest services" 1°? 160 - wrongdoing for which the public harm is sometimes hard to identify. [#894] By some accounts, including the U.S. Supreme Court's on occasion, 1°! this enforcement agenda has been overly aggressive. '°? But Congress has generally encouraged far-reaching federal enforcement, not

People Priority Goal"). 46 See Lichtblau, supra note 141. 47 See Paul G. Cassell & James R. Marsh, Full Restitution for Child Pornography Victims: The Supreme Court's Paroline Decision and the Need for a Congressional Response, /3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 1, 7 (2015). 48 See U.S. Dep't of Justice, supra note 145, at I

06), but in practice the reported cases under the CVRA thus far show few examples where the government has been willing to do so. See, e.g., Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (victims' assertion of right affirmed; government does not take a position on t

in opposition to a plea. The prosecutor refused to convey that information to the court and the trial judge accepted the plea. When the issue reached the Utah Supreme Court, the court concluded that the prosecutor had an ethical obligation as an officer of the court to convey that information to the judge: Prosecutors m

n handedly to both prosecution and the defense. Neither side is required to disclose the address or telephone number of a victim, thus complying with the Supreme Court's instruction that "in the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two- 204 See infra notes 528-539 and ac

ered useless because the victim never knew of the proceeding at which the right had to be asserted."). 133 See United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9762 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting that CVRA requires notice to victims of the crime charged against the defendant but not notice to victims of any p

--- Page 21 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *870 court, and the trial judge accepted the plea. The victim then obtained legal counsel and appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, urging that under the Utah Victims’ Rights Amendment, her right to be heard regarding a plea had been violated. The State responded that the victim

also resided in that state would be incidental. An understanding of the Article II] provision as protecting the community's interest is bolstered by the Supreme Court's decisions on right of public access to trials. In cases such as Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 7°4 the Court has held that a guarantee of the

e of personal jurisdiction over them for the claims as pled would not comport with due process. Id. at 93-95. Plaintiffs thereafter sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court of each of these three principal holdings. In response to a request from the Supreme Court, the United States filed an amicus brief on May 29, 2009,

695, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135216, at *19-20 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (same); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Verizon Commce’ns, Inc., No. 10-CV-1842, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106657, at *12-16 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011) (same); Redding v. Edwards, 569 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132 (D.D.C. 2008) (same); Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC