W. Patrick Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that this right “give[s] crime victims the right to speak at proceedings covered by the CVRA”
• recognizing that CVRA makes victims independent participants in legal process
• noting that the focus in reviewing CVRA petitions is not in balancing all the Bauman factors, but whether the district court committed legal error or abused its discretion
• explaining that “we need not balance the usual Bauman [v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977)] factors . . . in ruling on mandamus petitions brought under the CVRA”
• granting writ of mandamus under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [d] [3] and ordering trial court to conduct new sentencing hearing allowing victims to speak if other statutory requirements met
• reviewing petition under the more generous “abuse of discretion or legal error” standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).