## Facts

- Moshe and Zvi Leichner operated a fraudulent foreign-currency investment scheme that defrauded many victims of nearly $100 million.
- Both defendants pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering.
- More than sixty victims submitted written victim-impact statements for sentencing.
- At Moshe Leichner’s sentencing, several victims (including W. Patrick Kenna) were permitted to speak, and Moshe was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment.
- At Zvi Leichner’s later sentencing, the district court heard from the prosecutor and the defendant but refused to permit any victim to speak, stating it had reviewed written statements and had already heard victims at Moshe’s sentencing.
- Victims objected and asserted new developments and a statutory right to be heard; the court maintained its refusal and sentenced Zvi to 135 months’ imprisonment.
- Kenna, as a victim, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), seeking to vacate Zvi’s sentence and require victim allocution at resentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether the CVRA right “to be reasonably heard” at sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4), includes a right to speak orally (allocution) rather than only submit written statements.
2. Whether victims must be allowed to be heard at each separate sentencing of co-defendants who victimized them.
3. What remedy is appropriate when a district court denies the CVRA right to be reasonably heard at sentencing.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted Kenna’s CVRA mandamus petition.
- The court held that the CVRA right “to be reasonably heard” at sentencing includes a right of oral allocution, subject to reasonable procedural limits.
- The court held that victims have this right at each sentencing proceeding involving a defendant who harmed them; speaking at a co-defendant’s sentencing does not satisfy the right at another defendant’s sentencing.
- The court concluded the district court violated the CVRA by refusing to permit victim statements at Zvi Leichner’s sentencing.
- The court vacated Zvi’s sentence and remanded for resentencing at which victims must be allowed to speak, with reasonable constraints to manage the proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4), a crime victim’s right to be “reasonably heard” at sentencing includes the opportunity to speak directly to the sentencing judge, not merely to submit written victim-impact statements.
- The CVRA applies to “any” sentencing proceeding; each defendant’s sentencing is a distinct proceeding at which victims may have separate, relevant views.
- District courts may impose reasonable limits on victim allocution (including time, number of speakers, and avoidance of repetition) so long as the right to be heard is not denied.
- The CVRA’s mandamus provision, § 3771(d)(3), authorizes appellate intervention to enforce victim participatory rights, including vacatur and resentencing when the right is wrongly denied.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the CVRA guarantees victims a meaningful opportunity for oral allocution at each defendant’s sentencing and ordered mandamus relief vacating the sentence and requiring resentencing with victim statements permitted under reasonable court controls.


Kenna v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006)