Epstein Secrets

the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court

y parole or other release of the criminal. The Task Force 4 18 U.S.C. § 3771(¢)(1). > Id. § 3771(d)(3). © See Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure 3-39 (3d ed. 2010) (describing reforms from a historical perspective); see also, e.g., /8 U.S.C. § 377/(a) (2012). 7

overning information subject to disclosure by the Government in criminal cases, nor any other federal rule or

yne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotations omitted). See generally Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure 638-39 (2d ed. 2005) (discussing the need for victims’ participation in the criminal justice system); see also Shirley

dings," *° to "confer with [the] attorney for the Government n 4l in the case, and to attend court proceedin

05)). The CVRA was part of a much larger piece of legislation that addressed a variety of subjects, known as the "Justice for All Act.” See generally Steven J. Twist, On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 Lewis & Cla

sonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do

victims were treated in all stages of the criminal justice process, from the police investigation through 6 See DoucLAs E. BELoor, PAUL G. CASSELL & STEVEN J. Twist, VICTIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3-39 (3d ed. 2010) (describing reforms from a historical perspective), see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012). T