Epstein Secrets

Australia cases on prosecutorial discretion, see Miller v Commonwealth Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions [2005] 1

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

1985) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Miller, 722 F.2d 562, 563 (9th Cir.1983)). 76 For alter

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

1985) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Miller, 722 F.2d 562, 563 (9th Cir. 1983)). 69 See Offi

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