J. Exvin) (similar). See also, e.g., United States v. Joyeros, 204 F.Supp.2d 412, 434-35 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (detailing history and motivations of bail reform); Note, The Eighth Amendment and the Right to Bail: Historical Perspectives, 82 Col. L.Rev. at 362 n. 13 (discussing evolution of constitutional prohibition against excessive bail). In 2006, the Adam Walsh Act amended the Bail Reform Act to require that “[i]n any case that involves a minor victim under ng “no constitutional infirmity in the Adam Walsh Act,” where it was “construfed] ... to reqtdre the district court to exercise its discretion, to the extent applicable, in applying the mandatory release conditions”) (emphasis added); Cossey, 637 F.Supp.2d at 889-90 (same); United States v. Gardner, 523 F.Supp.2d 1025 (N.D.Cal.2007) (<HOLDING>); but cf. United States v. Stephens, 594 F.3d
holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail and the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process and separation of powers holding that adam walsh act violates fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act