Epstein Secrets

criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman v. Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind th

ere petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in deference to pending civil litigation); United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2010) (relying on the "strong interest in the finality of criminal sentences" to reject mandamus under the Act where a defen

orp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th Cir. 2007); Scott Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1018 (11th Cir. 2006); National

d); see, e.g., id. § 3771(d) (3) (requiring district court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith"); United States.. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA plainly envisions that crime victims' petitions challenging a denial of their rights will be taken up a

orp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th Cir. 2007); Scott Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1018 (11th Cir. 2006); National

(d); see, e.g., id. § 3771(d)(3) (requiring district court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith"); United States.. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA plainly envisions that crime victims' petitions challenging a denial of their rights will be taken up a

t"); id. at 410 ("Simply put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue."); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994) ("[A] court must first determine whether it has proper subject matter jurisdiction before addressi

d); see, e.g., id. § 3771(d)(3) (requiring district court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith"); United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA plainly envisions that crime victims' petitions challenging a denial of their rights will be taken up a

t"); id. at 410 ("Simply put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue."); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994) ("[A] court must first determine whether it has proper subject matter jurisdiction before addressi

d); see, e.g., id. § 3771(d)(3) (requiring district court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith"); United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA plainly envisions that crime victims' petitions challenging a denial of their rights will be taken up a

t"); id. at 410 ("Simply put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue."); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994) ("[A] court must first determine whether it has proper subject matter jurisdiction before addressi

d); see, e.g., id. § 3771(d)(3) (requiring district court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith"); United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA plainly envisions that crime victims' petitions challenging a denial of their rights will be taken up a

trine applies to criminal litigation as well as civil, we find its protection unavailable in this case. Page 15 nized by this Court of Hickman /. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 .Ed. 451 (1947), reflects the strong 'public policy underlying the orderly prosecution *237 and defense of legal

here petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in deference to pending civil litigation); United States'. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2010) (relying on the "strong interest in the finality of criminal sentences" to reject mandamus under the Act where a defend

ion.' United States' Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman' Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawyer is bou

been recognized as parties, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow them to intervene as panics to a prosecution.); United States' Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 2010) ("Notwithstanding the rights reflected in the restitution statutes, crime victims arc not panics to a criminal sen

t"); id. at 410 ("Simply put, once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue."); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1366 (I I th Cir. 1994) ("[A] court must first determine whether it has proper subject matter jurisdiction before addres

d); see, e.g., id. § 3771(d)(3) (requiring district court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith"); United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The CVRA plainly envisions that crime victims' petitions challenging a denial of their rights will be taken up a