Epstein Secrets

ir feelings at the voting polls."); cf. Chenev v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) ("The decision to

d explaining how insufficient data limits the effectiveness of reform efforts). On the prospect of reduced federal commitment to this strategy in the Trump administration, see U.S. Attorney Gen., supra note 24; Horwitz et al., supra note 24. 197 See Dripps, supra note 149, at 19 & n.100 (citing five fed

d go without saying that nothing in the Rules can trump a substantive statute passed by Congress. See 28

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

s can modify substantive rights, °° the CVRA will trump any conflicting provision in the federal rules. °

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