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

red the girls for Epstein's sexual gratification or participated in the sexual abuse themselves. The victims include the petitioners in this case, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, who were 15 years old when first sexually abused by Epstein. B. Aug. 2006 Letter to Crime Victim about CVRA Rights Throughout the

her statutory rights under the CVRA. For example, in 2006 and before an indictment was drafted in 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office told petitioner Jane Doe 2 in a letter that she had statutory rights "to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case," "to be treated with fairness," and to petit

cult for victims to discover after the fact that potential criminal charges against a criminal who has abused them have been secretly bargained away. Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two, for example, were outraged when they discovered prosecutors had entered into an agreement blocking any prosecutio

fore charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least “contemplated” charges.” Similarly, in United States v. Oakum,” the District Court for the Easter District of Virginia considered a claim that CVRA nghts did not apply until after a defendant had been convicted.

cult for victims to discover after the fact that potential criminal charges against a criminal who has abused them have been secretly bargained away. Jane Doe Number One and Jane Doe Number Two, for example, were outraged when they discovered prosecutors had entered into an agreement blocking any prosecutio

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