Epstein Secrets

rts concluded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characte

ly limited to restitution, as many other CVRA rights clearly apply before conviction.''* Reviewing these two cases in an extended, published opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas noted that reading these two decisions as standing for the proposition that charges must be filed for CVRA rights

er prosecutors formally file [*68] criminal charges? Or do they attach at some earlier point in the process? Does v. United States, a federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, usefully illustrates the issue. *° In that case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florid

that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(

ral courts have the inherent power to request attorneys to represent indigent crime victims. An illustration of this power is found in a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in United States v. Stamper. *8 In this rape case, a dispute arose over the admission of certain psychiatr

ainst individuals who have not been convicted of a crime." Jn re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at 2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006). Like the constitutional amendment it was patterned on, the CVRA exte