Epstein Secrets

that crime victims had no right to confer with prosecutors until after the Department had reached and signed a plea agreement with a corporation (BP Products North America) whose illegal actions had resulted in the deaths of fifteen workers in an oil refinery explosion. Of course, this position meant that the victim

cuit. At the time, three other Circuits had all issued unanimous rul- ings that crime victims were entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mow. Co.. 409 Fad 565, 512 (2d Cir. 2005): Kenna v. US. Dui. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Ca.. 436 5' al loll, 1017 (9th Cir. 2036): In re Wal

ment deemed was a "reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) at * 2. The government announced to the court 29 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARR

tlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2). W.R. me, 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff, there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in W.R. me, here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epst

ment deemed was a "reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) at " 2. The government announced to the court 29 EFTA00230094 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62

ttlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(dX2). W11. Huff 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in Wit. Huff here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epste