Epstein Secrets

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

f victims’ “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the © John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 MCGEORGE L. REV. 689, 693 (

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

t covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights ® John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 McGeorge L. Rev. 689, 693 (

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

tion, Indigent in Civil Action, 52 A.L.R. 4th 1063 (1987 & Supp. 2004). 312 912 F. Supp. 1221 (D. Neb. 1995). w 3 Id. at 1229. w 4 See generally John W. Gillis & Douglas Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 McGeorge L. Rev. 689, 692 (200