Epstein Secrets

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

REv. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Conc. REc. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein), see also Ky] et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. 2 Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

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

Rev. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Cong. Rec. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein); see also Kyl et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. ~ Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

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

y address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. 47 Senator Dianne Feinstein, another primary sponsor of the bill, remarked that Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill was "[her] understanding as well." +43 In addition to th