Epstein Secrets

esented the case to the U.S. Attomey’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. In 2007, the Office contacted counsel

rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights were expansive and could apply before charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least

stice, U.S. DEp’T oF JUSTICE, THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS—DOES LEGAL PROTECTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE? (1998), available at http://go0.g//EzH61S. 21 See Peggy M. Tobolowsky, Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice Process: Fifteen Years After the President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, 25 NEw ENG. J. oN CRIM. &

sented the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. In 2007, the Office contacted counsel

ights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights ® John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in t

tice, U.S. Dep't of Justice, The Rights of Crime Victims - Does Legal Protection Make a Difference? (1998), available at hitp-//goo.gl/EzH61S. I See Peggy M. Tobolowsky, Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice Process: Fifteen Years After the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 25 New Eng. J. on Crim. &

See Parrillo, supra note 58. 8° Professional police forces did not arise until the 1850s, so victims investigated crimes and arrested offenders. See Peggy M. Tobolowsky, Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice Process: Fifteen Years After the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 25 New Eng. J. Crim. & Civ

onvincing Congress to expand their discretion at the expense of judges' sentencing authority, see United States v. Kupa, 976 F. Supp. 2d 417, 419-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (describing the legislative history and Justice Department lobbying related to federal drug statutes, notably 27 U.S.C. § 841 (2012)). 218 See