Epstein Secrets

h is consistent with the leading case of State v. Casey, !7! which considered whether a victim's request

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

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

n 22 Mich. J.L. & Reform 773 (1989). 50 See United States v. Sells Eng., Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 466 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 5! See, e.g., State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756 (Utah 2002), discussed infra notes 163-66 and accompanying text. 32 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(4) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005); see In re Kari Ann

STLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023373 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) On January 18, 2005, Judge Casey issued his decision in Terrorist Attacks I, dismissing claims against, inter alia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and several Saudi Princes on sovereign

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