A Big Win for Child Crime Victims
In a groundbreaking decision, a Florida federal court recently handed crime victims a significant victory, ruling for the first time that victims are entitled to confer with an assistant United States attorney before the Government enters a pre-charging, non-prosecution agreement with a defendant. Jane Doe v. United States, 08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.). The case involved billionaire hedge fund operator Jeffrey Epstein, who induced minors to prostitute themselves, and then was granted what appears to be a special, sweetheart deal by the Feds without any victim notification ...
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Landmark Children’s Rights Case
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a case brought by the Marsh Law Firm concerning criminal restitution for victims of child pornography.
The Court agreed to decide “what, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. §2259,” the Mandatory Restitution for Sexual Exploitation of Children Act of 1994.
The case, Doyle Randall Paroline v. Amy Unknown, arises out of a long-fought and ...
Sixth Circuit – Dissent Criticizes Limited Restitution Options
In a forceful dissent, a judge in the latest child pornography restitution decision proclaimed that "to accomplish the difficult task of assigning financial responsibility to possessors of child pornography for the harm caused by their conduct, district judges should have all the tools provided by law at their disposal and should be permitted broad discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy."
The case before the Sixth Circuit, United States v. Hargrove, was decided under controlling Circuit precedent which requires "proximate cause" before a district court can award ...
D.C. Circuit Weighs Child Pornography Restitution Case
From the BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes, a recent post about the Marsh Law Firm's continued efforts on behalf of child pornography victims in the long-running Monzel case:
The thorny question of how to calculate restitution to victims of child pornography came back before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week, with the U.S. Department of Justice defending a proposed formula.
Friday's arguments marked the second time the court considered the case of Michael Monzel. Monzel pleaded guilty to one count each of distribution and possession of child pornograp...
Amy and Vicky, Child Porn Victims: No Joint and Several Liability
From FindLaw, a post about the Marsh Law Firm's latest restitution case:
You'd have to imagine, at some point, that either Congress (ha!) or the Supreme Court will step in and clear up the confusion surrounding restitution for those depicted in child pornography, as well as the issue of joint and several liability of the present day possessors of the images. Though they've denied certiorari in Amy and Vicky cases before, the flood of circuit court confusion and circuit splintering continues.
Last September, the ABA Journal wrote an exhaustive feature on Amy and Vicky, ...
Restitution Returns to the United States Supreme Court (again)
Today, James R. Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm and Paul G. Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law Appellate Legal Clinic, filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court in their latest effort to convince the Court to consider the critical issue of criminal restitution for victims of child pornography.
The case, Doyle Randall Paroline v. Amy Unknown, arises out of a long-fought extensively litigated restitution action which started almost four years ago before Judge Leonard Davis in the Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division.
In January, the defendant filed a ...
10th Circuit Fires the Series-Qualifier Canon Across the Restitution Bow
Earlier this month, in an uninspired decision in United States v. Benoit, the Tenth Circuit held that "showing only that defendant participated in the audience of persons who viewed the images of the victim…may be sufficient to establish that defendant's actions were one cause of the generalized harm victims suffered due to the circulation of their images on the internet, but it is not sufficient to show that they were a proximate cause of any particular losses."
In other words, "generalized harm" = no foul and no restitution for victims of child pornography.
Acc...