Epstein Secrets

nable 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 (2002). 63 527 F.3d

as a basis for identifying a “crime victim’ as defined in the CVRA, the class of victims with statutory rights may well be broader.””'°’ Paletz and Skinner similarly provide scant support for the Department’s position. In Skinner, a prison inmate attempted to bring a pro se civil suit against another inm

urt proceedings, and ultimately to any parole or other release of the criminal. The Task Force 4 18 U.S.C. § 3771(¢)(1). > Id. § 3771(d)(3). © See Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure 3-39 (3d ed. 2010) (describing reforms from a historical perspective); see also, e.

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(c)(3)(A). % Td. § 10607(c)(1)(A).

ing) (internal quotations omitted). See generally Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Cr

viduals 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 extends rights