4
Shared Docs
1
Same-Page
5 / 4
Mentions
nalysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1996) (Judicial deference [94] to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of
22331 EFTA_00 170057 EFTA01296725 Page 1 No Information Found Public Record: 1 OF 1 RECORD(S) FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Copyright 2017 LexisNexis a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Date:6/16/2017 Report processed by: DEUTSCHE BANK AGII Full Name Address County Phone
ARTICLE: Treating Crime Victims Fairly: Integrating Victims into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
nd sixth amendment Search Type: Terms and Connectors Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Secondary Materials Sources: Law Reviews and Journals w LexisNexis® | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017635 --- PAGE BREAK --- ART
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017635 →lose the identity of its witnesses before trial. However, the basis for such grants of authority now seems defunct. For instance, in United States v. Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit recognized no authority exists in the federal rules for requiring the government to disclose the names of its witnesses. 74 Still,
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017676 →disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for court authority in the absence of control
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017676 →Article: Criminal Enforcement Redundancy: Oversight of Decisions Not to Prosecute
and sixth amendment Search Type: Terms and Connectors Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Secondary Materials Sources: Law Reviews and Journals w LexisNexis® | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016509 --- PAGE BREAK --- Art
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016509 →97 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (holding that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required under the Due Process Clause). ° United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 456-71 (1996) (examining selective prosecution claim based on racial bias); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016511 →ARTICLE: Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
d sixth amendment Search Type: Terms and Connectors Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Secondary Materials Sources: Law Reviews and Journals w LexisNexis® | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017714 --- PAGE BREAK --- ART
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017714 →246 150 Cong. Rec. $10,911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added). 247 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). 248 150 Cong. Rec. $4264 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added). 249 See 18 U.S.C.
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017750 →Entities connected to both Armstrong and LexisNexis

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION
United States
LOCATION
George W. Bush
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSONLeon Black
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSON
New York City
LOCATION
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Bill Clinton
PERSON
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Donald Trump
PERSONMaria Farmer
PERSON
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION
Paul Cassell
PERSON
Eric Trump
PERSON
Michael Jackson
PERSON