Epstein Secrets

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

ctims 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 See Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F

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

J. Int'l L. 37 (1996); Steven J. Twist, The Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment and Two Good and Perfect Things, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 369. 7 See generally Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 6, at 29-38; Douglas Evan Beloof, The Third Wave of Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255; Cassell, Balancin

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

ndant has the right to be present." *° The amendment further allows victims to be heard at bail, plea, and sentencing hearings. 7° 16 See generally Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 15, at ch. 1; Douglas E. Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255 [hereinafter

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

CTIMS 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 See BELOOF, CASSELL & TWIST, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F