hat apply to pre-indictment assertions of rights is discussed at notes 184-187 and 193 infra and accompanying text. 7 No. 3:08cr132, 2009 WL 790042 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). 8 Id, "2, ™ No. 2:10-CV-298 RM, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010). ™ Td. at *2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th C

hat apply to pre-indictment assertions of rights is discussed at notes 184-187 and 193 infra and accompanying text. ? No. 3:08cr132, 2009 WL 790042 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). 3 Td. at 2. ™ No, 2:10-CV-298 RM, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010). 75 Id. at 2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (Sth

Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted); accord United States v. Sharp, 463 F.Supp.2d 556, 56] n.12 (E.D. Va. 2006); see also In re Kenna, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (looking to legislative history to interpret CVRA); United States v. Cienfuegos, 462

eh’g denied, 513 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2008) [hereinafter United States v. Kay] ; Jury Instructions at 76-87, United States v. Jefferson, No. 07-cr-209 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2009), ECF No. 684 [hereinafter United States v. Jefferson] (same); Jury Instructions at 8-10, United States v. Green, No. 08-cr-59 (C.D. Ca

irly prejudicial by a witness’ assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege . . .” United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Baxler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) (“the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil acti

o some degree the trial system's capacity to ascertain the truth."' United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting Robert Heidt, The 8 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009 Page 9 of 41 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-

personal injury as a result of such violation .... " See Smith v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and

ins, however, that such an inference is somehow not proper under the test laid out by United States v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). Custer Battles lays out a two-prong test for deciding whether a factfinder can appropriately draw an adverse inference. The first prong is

personal injury as a result of such violation .... " See Smith v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and

e generally, Smith v. Husband, 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.

does not apply, and there are no other concrete indications that criminal prosecution is barred. See also Belmonte v Lawson, 750 F. Supp. 735, 739 (E.D. Va. 1990)("Courts should avoid engaging in crystal ball forecasts about what a prosecutor may or may not do ... ). Significantly, these cases have been

ghts prior to the acceptance of plea agreements. See In re Dean 527 F.3d at 394; United States v. Okun, No. CRIM. 3:08CR132, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). Furthermore, victims obtain rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. Okum, 2009 WL 790042, at '2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d

ghts prior to the acceptance of plea agreements. See In re Dean 527 F.3d at 394; United States v. Okun, No. CRIM. 3:08CR132, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009). Furthermore, victims obtain rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. Okum, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d

1484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) (same). 5 EFTA00028912 --- PAGE BREAK --- The only exception is United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019). In Nader, the court performed a Landgraf analysis in analyzing the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment, and it appears to be the only previo