Epstein Secrets

("the U.S. Attorney didn't have an obligation under the CVRA to confer with [victims] until after was filed and a case opened"); United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 2008) ("the CVRA appears to simply accord [victims] standing to vindicate their rights as victims under the CVRA and to

the CVRA because "the offense charged against a defendant can serve as a basis for identifying a 'crime victim' as defined in the CVRA"); Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 WL 1875802 *6 . June 27, 2007) (inmate does not qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA wher, has been a prosecut

district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin,” victims of a federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific

ded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characterizes Turn

isions, which provides further 79 victims of a support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin, federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affec

ctim of uncharged conduct 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).