Epstein Secrets

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 (

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 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 (

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 ---

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

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