Epstein Secrets

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

ivate benefits that criminal justice is now widely recognized to afford, and owe, to victims. 27 See Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 727-28 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("Law enforcement is not automatic ... . What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution

dopted amendments to their own state constitutions, | which protect a wide range of victims’ rights. ® Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotations omitted). See generally Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure 638

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

nial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 649, 650 (1976). 5 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). See generally Douglas Evan Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steve J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedu

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