Supreme Court refuses to resolve confusion over restitution for child porn victims
CSMonitor.com: Federal courts have disagreed about how to enforce a law that requires people convicted of possessing child pornography to pay restitution to the victim, even if they didn’t know the victim. But the Supreme Court refused to take up the case Monday . . . The case was Amy v. Monzel (11-85).
SCOTUS Blog Monzel case information page and documents:
Issue: (1) Whether the “proximate result” requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2259, which guarantees restitution to child pornography victims, applies only to the losses described in subsection 2259(F), which provides restitution for “any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense,” or instead extends to the losses described in subsections (A) through (E) as well; and (2) whether a crime victim has a statutory right to ordinary appellate review of a claim that a district court violated her rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.