Epstein Secrets

> See, e.g., id. at 17-19 (providing examples of the Justice Department's prosecution of state and local officials). 56 Td

seek review of prosecutors' decisions within the Department of Justice hierarchy, although it also explicitly bars judic

- victims - to prosecute alleged criminal wrongdoing. Redundant charging authority takes other forms as well. In large hierarchical agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice, internal administrative review of front-line prosecutors’ charging or declination decisions by higher-ups creates a version of redundant enforcement

ive review somewhat comparable to those in E.U. member states. Federal law grants victims a right to seek review of prosecutors' decisions within the Department of Justice hierarchy, although it also explicitly bars judicial review of Justice Department decisions in this process. !!4 Although decision makers in an inter

cccccccccesceessseesseesseesseeeseeessees 73 III. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S UNPERSUASIVE POSITION .........0....00000- 75 A.

CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United S

ns 71 C. Courts Recognize That Crime Victims Have CVRA Rights Before Charging .........ccccccccccccccccccccccesceessseesseesseesseeeseeessees 73 III. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S UNPERSUASIVE POSITION .........0....00000- 75 A. OLC’s Misreading of the CVRA’s Definition of “Victim” ........ 76 B. OLC’s Distortion of the CVRA’s

hat potential charges will never be filed. The issue of pre-charging rights has most prominently surfaced in connection with federal cases. In 2010, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) weighed in on the issue and released a legal opinion arguing that victims of federal crimes have no CVRA rights during

of 31 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *75 II. The Justice Department's Unpersuasive Position Despite the CVRA's broad r

cifically directs that "officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United

hat potential charges will never be filed. The issue of pre-charging rights has most prominently surfaced in connection with federal cases. In 2010, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) weighed in on the issue and released a legal opinion arguing that victims of federal crimes have no CVRA rights during

l & Twist, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim L. Rev. 649, 651-55 (1976). ° Exec. Order 12,360, 47 F

ourt proceedings. Moreover, the CVRA directs that the Department of Justice and its investigative agencies "shall make their

ub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2014 (1984) (directly amending Rule 32). ! Fed. R. Crim. P.32(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). 2 Td. at 32(d)(2)(A). 3 Td. * William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 649, 650 (1976). 5 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.

yl) ("We authorized an appropriation of funds to assure ... that moneys would be made available to enhance the victim notification system, managed by the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and the resources additionally to develop state-of-the-art systems for notifying crime victims of important statements o