Epstein Secrets

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

stitutional principle of separation of powers. Attorneys and Law Firms *1198 Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

her. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to conceal the existence of the NPA from all the victims for months to come. In mid- June *1233 of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and

for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and, later, Jane Doe 2. AUSA Villafana and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed against Epstein in the future. Edwards was led to believe that federal charges could stil

re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010). The district courts that have considered the question are divided. Compare, e.g., 1' United States it Oakum, No. 3:08CR132, 2009 WL 790042, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009) (holding that CVRA rights can attach prior to the commencement of criminal proceedi

RGES ARE FILED Winter, 2014 Reporter 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59 * Length: 23898 words Author: PAUL G. CASSELL*, NATHANAEL J. MITCHELL** and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS*** * Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. ** Associate, Snow, Christensen &

CASSELL*, NATHANAEL J. MITCHELL** and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS*** * Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Cr

l). 40 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, two of the authors of this Article (Cassell and Edwards) are co-counsel for the victims in this case. The statement of the facts in this Article draws heavily on the victims' allegations as they have detai

re charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least "contemplated" charges. 7! Similarly, in United States v. Oakum, ” the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered a claim that CVRA rights did not apply until after a defendant had been convict

tion Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell, and Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigati

fore charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least “contemplated” charges.” Similarly, in United States v. Oakum,” the District Court for the Easter District of Virginia considered a claim that CVRA nghts did not apply until after a defendant had been convicted.