| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | State v. Timmendequas decision | New Jersey | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Decision in State v. Timmendequas (737 A.2d 55). | New Jersey | View |
This document appears to be a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 28 of a 52-page production) included in a file by attorney David Schoen for the House Oversight Committee. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), quoting Senator Kyl and citing case law (State v. Timmendequas) to argue that victims have a due process right to be heard, particularly regarding venue transfer decisions, to minimize their inconvenience and trauma.
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 21 and Rule 23). The text argues that victims should have a say in decisions regarding venue transfers and waivers of jury trials. The document originates from the files of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) as part of a House Oversight investigation, indicated by the footer stamps.
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 46 of 78 in the exhibit) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681). The text analyzes the legal rights of crime victims to attend trials and have input on venue transfers, citing Supreme Court precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It specifically discusses the New Jersey case *State v. Timmendequas* as an example of prioritizing victims' convenience by importing a jury rather than moving the trial location.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity