Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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