Landmark Children’s Rights Case Now Before the Fifth Circuit

Landmark Children’s Rights Case Now Before the Fifth Circuit

By James R. Marsh on April 25, 2012

During the past two years, victims of child pornography (represented by the Marsh Law Firm and pioneering attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Carol L. Hepburn) have been seeking restitution in federal courts throughout the country.

Almost twenty years ago Congress, led by then-Senator Joe Biden, passed a law as part of the Violence Against Women Act which requires federal district courts to award mandatory restitution to child pornography victims for the “full amount of the victim’s losses.” 18 U.S.C. § 2259(B)(3). Among the losses covered by the statute are psychiatric care, lost income, and occupational therapy.

Recently this issue has come to a head in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in two cases, In re Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238, and United States v. Wright, No. 09-3125.

The Fifth Circuit has scheduled a rare rehearing en banc before 16 judges in these two cases on Thursday, May 3, 2012 in New Orleans.

Amy will argue that the Fifth Circuit should not read a general proximate cause requirement into the statute. At least four judges on the Court agree with her.

Both the Government and the defendants in these two consolidated cases believe that proximate cause is required and limits the availability and amount of restitution.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of the year.

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

Supreme Court Grants Justice Dep’t Request to Reject Child Victims

Supreme Court Grants Justice Dep’t Request to Reject Child Victims
By James R. Marsh on December 6, 2011

Last week the United States Supreme Court ignored the extraordinary pleas of three nationally recognized child advocacy groups and granted the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a child sex abuse victim’s appeal for criminal restitution.

The case now returns to the district court which must follow the DC Circuit’s holding that the victim in this case, Amy, does not have a clear and indisputable right to full restitution, but must instead trace precisely how her losses were “proximately” caused by each of the thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and trade her child sex abuse images.

The Supreme Court’s rejection means that a child pornography victim’s right to criminal restitution in the federal courts will continue to be limited and denied in sixteen states and territories, including California, New York and Washington, DC. Only in the Fifth Circuit—encompassing the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi—is restitution still mandatory.

The Court’s denial—and the Justice Department’s stubborn refusal to abandon a legal standard which the influential Ninth Circuit concluded “present[s] serious obstacles for victims seeking restitution in these sorts of cases”—leaves child sex abuse victims like Amy with scant chance for justice in the federal courts.

Pedophiles, child molesters and the Justice Department are likely to seize on the high court’s rejection as a sign that criminal restitution for child sex abuse victims is all but impossible in the federal courts except under the most egregious circumstances. http://www.childlaw.us/2011/12/supreme-court-grants-justice-d.html