DOJ-OGR-00000647.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Image Extraction** **Case Information:** * Case Number: 1:19-cr-00490-RMB * Document Number: 53 * Filed Date: 09/03/19 **Page Information:** * Page Number: 9 of 86 **Text Extraction:** This latter application of the rule of abatement regarding forfeiture has not been universally accepted among federal courts, but it certainly is the law in this circuit. Some of you may be interested to know that some United States courts, state courts, have criticized the rule of abatement, particularly in the face of growing recognition of victims' rights in the criminal justice system, including the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It has been written and contended in the Brooklyn Law Review -- I can give you the cite later -- that when courts abate criminal convictions, they reimpose a burden on victims that legislatures intended to alleviate through these victim rights statutes. The state Supreme Court has even concluded that the expansion and codification of victims' rights provides the changed conditions needed for overruling the rule of abatement. It has also been stated that Alaska's statute and its constitution now require the criminal justice system to accommodate the rights of crime victims. Further, that the abatement of criminal convictions has important implications for these rights. But coming back to our case, which is what you are concerned about and I am as well, it is appropriate to conclude that if the rule of abatement applies to a convicted defendant as in the Wright case, it should also apply a fortiori in the Epstein case, which was still in the pretrial phase when **Footer Information:** * Southern District Reporters, P.C. * Phone Number: (212) 805-0300 * Document Identifier: DOJ-OGR-00000647