DOJ-OGR-00000647.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document53_ Filed 09/03/19 Page 9 of 86 ) J8RSEPS1 1 This latter application of the rule of abatement 2 regarding forfeiture has not been universally accepted among 3 federal courts, but it certainly is the law in this circuit. 4 Some of you may be interested to know that some United States 5 courts, state courts, have criticized the rule of abatement, 6 particularly in the face of growing recognition of victims' 7 rights in the criminal justice system, including the Crime 8 Victims' Rights Act. 9 It has been written and contended in the Brooklyn Law 10 Review -- I can give you the cite later that when courts 11 abate criminal convictions, they reimpose a burden on victims 12 that legislatures intended to alleviate through these victim 13 rights statutes. The state Supreme Court has even concluded 14 that the expansion and codification of victims' rights provides 15 the changed conditions needed for overruling the rule of 16 abatement. It has also been stated that Alaska's statute and 17 its constitution now require the criminal justice system to 18 accommodate the rights of crime victims. Further, that the 19 abatement of criminal convictions has important implications 20 for these rights. 21 But coming back to our case, which is what you are 22 concerned about and I am as well, it is appropriate to conclude 23 that if the rule of abatement applies to a convicted defendant 24 as in the Wright case, it should also apply a fortiori in the 25 Epstein case, which was still in the pretrial phase when SOUTH ERN D STR CT R EH PORT (212) 805-0300 ERS, Ps DOJ-OGR-00000647