Epstein Secrets

REv. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Conc. REc. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein), see also Ky] et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. 2 Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

itution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 10601, 10606-07 (2006)). 3 See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325, 328 (10th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (refusing to enforce a victim’s right to attend a trial), Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates?, supra n

Rev. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Cong. Rec. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein); see also Kyl et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. ~ Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

stitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.$$/0601, 10606-07 (2006)). 2 See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325, 328 (10th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (refusing to enforce a victim's right to attend a trial); Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates?, supra n

o. 101-647, § 502(b) (1996). 2 Id. § 502(b)(1). 3 Id. § 502(b)(3). 24 Id. § 502(b)(5). 25 Id. § 502(b)(4). 26 Id. § 502(a). 27 United States v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809, 814-815 (10th Cir. 1998). See generally Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates, supra note 6, at 515-22 (discussing this case in greater det

y address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. 47 Senator Dianne Feinstein, another primary sponsor of the bill, remarked that Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill was "[her] understanding as well." +43 In addition to th