Epstein Secrets

Gen.). 30 See www.nveap.org (last visted Dec. 30, 2007). 3! For a comprehensive history of victims' efforts to pass a constitutional amendment, sce Jon Kyl, Steven J. Twist & Stephen Higgins, On the Wings of Their Angels, the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preseon, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn

to interpret CVRA); United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1344 (D. Utah 2006) (same); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WE 2875220 (E.D.N_Y. 2005) (same). 94 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2006). °° CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra n

t stage." 1° 157 Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 60(a)(3), at 15-16. 158 Compare United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1345-46 (D. Utah 2005) (finding that a victim must be heard orally at sentencing), and United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting in di

108 A.L.R. Fed. 828 (2005). A few new issues will need to be litigated. For example, the Hughey case noted above conflicts with the views of Senator Jon Kyl, co- sponsor of the CVRA, who explained that the definition of "victim" in the CVRA is an intentionally broad definition because "all victims of DAV

thdrawn if the CVRA was passed). 224 18 U.S.C. 3663A, 3664 (2000). 25 Td. 3663, 3664. See generally United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004) (discussing different statutes), rev'd on other grounds, United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656 (10th Cir. 2005). 26 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1) (em

interests of justice standard); United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711] F.2d 1164, 1174 (2d Cir. 1983) (compelling need standard). 68 See, e.g., D. Utah Crim. Local R. 32-1(c) (presentence reports not released without order of the court). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017751 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page

pe of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not

stigations and proceedings. Doe, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 1267; see also 157 Cong. Rec. 57060-01, 157 Cong. Rec. S7060-01, S7060 (CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl's 2011 letter to the Attorney General, explaining that "Congress intended the CVRA to broadly protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice

pe of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not

stigations and proceedings. Doe, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 1267; see also 157 Cong. Rec. 57060-01, 157 Cong. Rec. S7060-01, S7060 (CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl's 2011 letter to the Attorney General, explaining that "Congress intended the CVRA to broadly protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice