Epstein Secrets

ions.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—p

re formal charges are filed. 27 Ariz. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-4401(6) (2010) (emphasis added), see State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 150 P.3d 778, 780-81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting the original version defined a criminal offense as a violation of a statute). °28 Under Arizona law, the “rights and duties that are e

t none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner -

ws by State, supra note 218. 27 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4401(6) (2010) (emphasis added); see State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 150 P.3d 778, 780-81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting the original version defined a criminal offense as a violation of a statute). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017630 --- PAGE BREAK ---

rged conduct under the CVRA. See United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 327 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (conclu

ses, and the prompt administration of justice. [*879] The Rationale: 191 See, e.g., State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Courts, 836 P.2d 445, 451-52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) (crime victim had the right to deny defendant access to medical records); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290, 1296-97 (Pa. 1992). See genera