3
Shared Docs
0
Same-Page
5 / 3
Mentions
ARTICLE: Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
nt asserts has been harmed by a crime or who self-identifies as such qualifies as a "victim"); cf. In re WR. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 561 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals not convicted of a crime, but the government can attempt to obtain
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017728 →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
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017746 →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
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017752 →ARTICLE: Treating Crime Victims Fairly: Integrating Victims into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
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
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017647 →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
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017654 →ongressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of trial. +3? The distri
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017674 →Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013); United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n. I I (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp.
Page: EFTA00030252 →) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never directly addressed this issue. See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The government has not argued and, therefore, EFTA00030252 --- PAGE BREAK --- Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge
Page: EFTA00030253 →Entities connected to both D. Utah and Second Circuit

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONJane Doe
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Donald Trump
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSONDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATIONFBI
ORGANIZATIONFederal Bureau of Prisons
ORGANIZATION
Harvey Weinstein
PERSON
Cynthia Nixon
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSONU.S. Attorney's Office
ORGANIZATION
Anderson
PERSON
Alexander Acosta
PERSON
the United States District Court
ORGANIZATION
Salt Lake City
LOCATION