Epstein Secrets

re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010). The district courts that have considered the question are divided. Compare, e.g., 1' United States it Oakum, No. 3:08CR132, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009) (holding that CVRA rights can attach prior to the commencement of criminal proceedi

the crimes against the victims; (3) discovery of records explicating why the U.S. Attorney's Office decided to grant Epstein federal immunity; (4) the Department of Justice's designation of a representative to explain the Office's decision to resolve the Epstein case without any federal prosecution; (5) mandatory CVRA t

ice Department's Office of Legal Counsel ("OLCi. Maj. Op. at 1213-14 n.20. The Justice Department's 2010 OLC opinion, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486,

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

re charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least "contemplated" charges. 7! Similarly, in United States v. Oakum, ” the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered a claim that CVRA rights did not apply until after a defendant had been convict