2. Speaking of Judge Marra, he has ruled that the feds should have notified the victims (via PBP):
A federal judge has paved the way for victims to continue their fight to invalidate a secret deal, which saved billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from facing serious federal charges and significant prison time.
Monday’s 14-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra rejects the U.S. Attorney’s Office argument that it was under no obligation to notify victims prior to striking a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein simply because there were no federal charges filed against him.
Marra ordered that discovery in the case proceed, which means that the victims — and the public — may get access to previously secret correspondence between Epstein’s attorneys and the government.
Attorneys Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards have been fighting on behalf of Jane Does No. 1 and No. 2 to have the federal non-prosecution agreement overturned, because, they say, it was done without notice or consent of the victims, which violates the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
In his ruling, Marra agrees that the language in the act provides for victims’ rights to include pre-charge proceedings.
“The government’s interpretation ignores the additional language throughout the statute that clearly contemplates pre-charge protections,” Marra wrote in his ruling.
Marra also rejects the government’s argument that “pre-charge CRVA rights could impair prosecutorial discretion and decision-making.”
Cassell, a former federal judge, called the ruling “a home run" for all victims.
3. Here's an interesting opinion on the plain view doctrine and screen savers, via Orin Kerr:
The legal question: When a computer is in screensaver mode, does a police officer’s touching a key or moving the mousepad in order to reveal the contents of the screen constitute a Fourth Amendment “search”?
The ruling: In United States v. Musgrove, 2011 WL 4356521 (E.D.Wis. 2011) (Joseph, M.J.):
Whether there is a search here is a close call because the officer did not actively open any files. A truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 328 (1987). However, this is not such a case. By touching a key or moving the mouse, the officer put into view the Facebook wall, which was not previously in view. Though a close call, the Court concludes that this was a search, however minimal, which required further authority, a warrant or consent. The government submits that the officer’s manipulation of the computer was for the purpose of seizing the computer, not to conduct a preliminary search. However, intent is not generally relevant in assessing whether a search ensued. See, e.g., United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d 779, 784 (7th Cir.2010)(citing Platteville Area Apt. Ass’n v. City of Platteville, 179 F.3d 574, 580 (7th Cir.1999)). The Court therefore recommends that the defendant’s Facebook wall be suppressed.