Epstein Secrets

estion that Congress intended, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Co

l plea agreement); State v. Wall, 502 S.E.2d 585, 588 (N.C. 1998) (same); Ex parte Rich,194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (same); State v. Mazzone, 572 S.E.2d 891, 897 (W.Va. 2002) ("[A] plea agreement which cannot be fulfilled based upon legal impossibility must be vacated in its entirety.").

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United S

tive one); Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court cannot enforce an illegal sentence below the statutory range); State v. Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 374 (2002) (court would not enforce plea agreement that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdem

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United S

tive one); Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court cannot enforce an illegal sentence below the statutory range); State v. Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 374 (2002) (court would not enforce plea agreement that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdem