). *67 Communication from Professor Douglas Beloof, Director of the National Crime Victims Law Institute (Jan. 19, 2007) (on file with author). %68 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (internal quotation omitted). 569 See supra notes 206-211 and accompanying text. 570 See supra note 210 and acc

s v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1997) passim United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) 29, 37 Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) 28, 43 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) 52 Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957) 46 vi EFTA00155906 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Amend. VI 21, 22

osi"' de stueed Cm eiet (at the hoc bang kasscubt4 to, 6 screatie ard 1.19rocnate lor me Pent. [te ~Pent mett all appfeetbeilinrenf.en raene, net Warth. ~d essets ard omet *edrue* setwil ty standards. te) are drent <an :Kommady I ing mak** all riandlid tea benda. kabl kaun Ne f‘indbased mthe are

his Summers v. Earth Island institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); see also Doe v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 462, 466 (5th Cr. 2001Xciting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 10 In fact, the plaintiff's in Doe I sought the same relief which the defendants did no