Epstein Secrets

mons 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993). 3 EFTA00601684 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 4 of 11 Referring to Rubin the district court added that, "Not only do victims not have a veto, they do not have the right to dictate government strategy or demand who to pros

al decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing, or parole." Id. at 424(citation omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Thetford 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the W

289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the Winslett's boat. Thetford was criminally charged and entered into a plea agreement with the Government. The Winsletts sought to reopen the plea under § 3771(d), complaining

mons 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993). 3 EFTA00799966 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 4 of 11 Referring to Rubin the district court added that, "Not only do victims not have a veto, they do not have the right to dictate government strategy or demand who to pros

al decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing, or parole." Id. at 424(citation omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Thetford 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the W

289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the Winslett's boat. Thetford was criminally charged and entered into a plea agreement with the Government. The Winsletts sought to reopen the plea under § 3771(d), complaining

cretion"); id. at *4 (CVRA does not confer "they do not have the right to dictate Government strategy or demand who to prosecute"); United States v. Rubin, 558 F.Supp.2d 411, 418 2008)(CVRA "gives victims a voice, not a veto"). Thus, even if CVRA affords crime victims a "reasonable" right to confer w

ecutorial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (M. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 M. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discret

's discretion"); id. at *4 (CVRA does not confer on victims "the right to dictate Government strategy or demand who to prosecute"); United States v. Rubin, 558 F.Supp.2d 411, 418 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)(CVRA "gives victims a voice, not a veto"). Thus, even if the CVRA affords crime victims a "reasonable" righ

rial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (S.D.Fla. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 (N.D.Ala. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's d

hat there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant." Id. § 3771(f)(2)(D); see also United States v. Thetford, 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1282 (ND. Ala. 2013) ("These rights, however, do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discretio

respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy,’ ... may apply before any prosecution is underway" (quoting /8 U.S.C. § 377I(a))); cf. United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (assuming without deciding that some federal victim rights may apply before any prosecution is under way, b