U.S. v. Davis, 18-CR-30115-DRH. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20180628c36
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the application of the United States of America to designate the within case a Multiple Victim case under the Justice for All Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. 3771. (Doc. 12). The government has represented that there are thousands of victims of the purported fraud charged in the indictment and that formal compliance with all of the provisions of the Act would be impractical. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(2), the Court f
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the application of the United States of America to designate the within case a Multiple Victim case under the Justice for All Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. 3771. (Doc. 12). The government has represented that there are thousands of victims of the purported fraud charged in the indictment and that formal compliance with all of the provisions of the Act would be impractical. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(2), the Court fi..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the application of the United States of America to designate the within case a Multiple Victim case under the Justice for All Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. §3771. (Doc. 12). The government has represented that there are thousands of victims of the purported fraud charged in the indictment and that formal compliance with all of the provisions of the Act would be impractical.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(d)(2), the Court finds that the number of crime victims makes it impracticable to accord all of the crime victims all of the rights described in Section 3771(a). The Court therefore ORDERS that the notice and consultation requirements in subsections (2) and (5) of Section 3771(a) may be met through the establishment of an Internet web page and regular updates to the web page that provide notice of relevant events in the case. The Court determines that such a procedure would give effect to the Act but would not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
