Epstein Secrets

ions.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—p

rts concluded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characte

t none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner -

that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(

heard orally at sentencing), and United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting

ainst individuals who have not been convicted of a crime." Jn re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at 2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006). Like the constitutional amendment it was patterned on, the CVRA exte