Epstein Secrets

ir feelings at the voting polls."); cf. Chenev v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) ("The decision to

ublic Prosecutions Act 1983 s 10(2) (Austl.) (preserving private prosecution); id. s 9(5) (giving the Director power to take over a prosecution for a Commonwealth offence that has been instituted by another and either carry on or discontinue it); Annual Report 2014-15, Commonwealth Dir. Pub. Prosecutions (2015)

e first states to prohibit privately funded prosecutors even under supervision of public prosecutors were Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 146, 147-48 (1855); Meister v. People, 31 Mich. 99, 104-06 (1875); Biemel v. State, 37 N.W.244, 248-49 (Wis. 1888). See a

06), but in practice the reported cases under the CVRA thus far show few examples where the government has been willing to do so. See, e.g., Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (victims' assertion of right affirmed; government does not take a position on t

ft. Rape victims requested the return of their records from the center and, in some cases, even requested termination of the counseling relationship. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290, 1294 n.6 (Pa. 1992); Tera Jckowski Peterson, Comment, Distrust and Discovery: The Impending Debacle in Discovery of Rape Vi

ered useless because the victim never knew of the proceeding at which the right had to be asserted."). 133 See United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9762 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting that CVRA requires notice to victims of the crime charged against the defendant but not notice to victims of any p

rel. Romley v. Superior Courts, 836 P.2d 445, 451-52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) (crime victim had the right to deny defendant access to medical records); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290, 1296-97 (Pa. 1992). See generally Tera Jckowski Peterson, Distrust and Discovery: The Impending Debacle in Discovery of Rap