Epstein Secrets

of a commercial nature whether they belong to the Government or the industrial lend- ing institutions connecte

us defendants filed motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: (1) jurisdictional discov

’s activities were directed at the United States; U.S. Government had designated the trust a Specially Designated G

ntiffs moved to supplement the record. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: “1 Saudi High Commission

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

ly limited to restitution, as many other CVRA rights clearly apply before conviction.''* Reviewing these two cases in an extended, published opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas noted that reading these two decisions as standing for the proposition that charges must be filed for CVRA rights

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

er prosecutors formally file [*68] criminal charges? Or do they attach at some earlier point in the process? Does v. United States, a federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, usefully illustrates the issue. *° In that case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florid

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

ral courts have the inherent power to request attorneys to represent indigent crime victims. An illustration of this power is found in a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in United States v. Stamper. *8 In this rape case, a dispute arose over the admission of certain psychiatr