Epstein Secrets

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. hid. Dec. 8,2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Rights Act before any charges

very of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery] must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at '2 (recognizing the "chilling effect" that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiation

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The court

ery of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery] must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (recognizing the "chilling effect" that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiation

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The cour

very of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery) must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at '2 (recognizing the chilling effect that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiations

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The court

ery of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery] must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (recognizing the "chilling effect" that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiation