Epstein Secrets

175 Epstein’s state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the s

to represent her “because she was unable to get anyone from the [USAO] to tell her what was actually going on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein.”347 Villafaña told OPR that Wild did not contact her directly and she was not aware of 344 In

] OPR’s conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceed

parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally,

uns for the first tune Feb 19 - Villafada completes third update 10 prosecution memorandum Feb 28 - USAO nmifies DOJ Civli Rights Division that Epstem investigation is ongoing Additional Key Dates Dec 17.2010 - DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issues opinion regarding CVRA Oct 20 I I - DOJ revises

e described unless there is an appropriate, articulable reason not to do so.” Id., Art. II, ¶ C. 399 Id., Art. IV, ¶ B.1. 400 Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802, at *5 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (an inmate is not considered a crime victim for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed c

ting the Summary Judgment Motion (hereinafter "Motion") filed by the Petitioners in the CVRA case, 08-cv-80736-KAM, Dkt. 361. Dear Mr. Although Mr. Epstein is a limited intervenor rather than a party to the CVRA case between the Government and the Jane Does, please find several rebuttal arguments to the

se, 08-cv-80736-KAM, Dkt. 361. Dear Mr. Although Mr. Epstein is a limited intervenor rather than a party to th

the CVRA because "the offense charged against a defendant can serve as a basis for identifying a 'crime victim' as defined in the CVRA"); Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 WL 1875802 *6 . June 27, 2007) (inmate does not qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA wher, has been a prosecut

GING RIGHTS ATTACH UNDER THE CVRA ............... 90 A. A Test for Determining When Rights Attach.......0...000ccceeee 9] B. Applying the Test to the Epstein Case ..........ccccccceccccceceeeneees 93 C. Current Department Policy on Pre-charging Rights.................... 94 D. State Law Extension of Pre-ch

ll phases of the criminal justice process.° Congress drafted the CVRA, for example, broadly to make crime victims participants in criminal cases. The Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case demonstrates the importance of victim participation even before charges are filed. A. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS The c

ded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characterizes Turn

for crime victims has arisen - specifically, the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case before a federal court in Florida. In that case, girls victimized by Epstein have argued that they should have been consulted about a federal nonprosecution agreement; Department attorneys have responded that because prosecuto

Congress sought to end that suffering by making victims meaningful participants in criminal cases. 3° C. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRE-CHARGING ISSUE: THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE Grven the potentially expansive scope of victims' rights under both state provisions and the CVRA, a critical question arises about how to appl

ctim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(c)(3)(A).