1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-20165
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
vs.
CRAIG ALEO,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER
COMPELLING GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRIME VICTIMS’
RIGHTS ACT AND ORDERING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON THE QUESTION OF
APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS
Defendant, Craig Aleo, has filed a motion requesting that the Court enter an order
directing the prosecutor to file a formal motion, with notice to defense counsel, seeking
permission for the minor victim’s mother to speak at sentencing. Defendant’s attorney, John
Freeman, contends that this motion is filed pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act
(“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. This matter came before the Court on April 15, 2010. A hearing
was held and oral arguments were heard. For the reasons stated on the record, Defendant’s
motion is DENIED.
While the Court has already conducted a hearing on this motion, it informed the parties
that it intended to also issue a written opinion. The Court feels, very strongly, that Defendant’s
motion is unwarranted, baseless, and worthy of contempt of Court.
Freeman’s motion serves solely as a blatant attempt to intimidate the minor victim’s
mother. Freeman states in the motion that he seeks to ascertain the content of the victim’s
Case 2:09-cr-20165-BAF-VMM Document 39 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 4
2
mother’s statement, in advance, so that he may “appropriately respond.” He states that he wants
to determine, in advance, whether there will be a legal basis to challenge the introduction of
potentially impermissible material by the victim’s mother at his sentencing. Freeman should
know that his client does not have a right to respond to a statement pursuant to the CVRA, and
Freeman’s intention to do so makes a mockery of the CVRA, as it is clearly meant to intimidate
and harass the victim’s mother prior to her statutorily protected moment in Court.
Fre