Epstein Secrets

as a “kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right,” noting that she “believ[ed] in the victims and tr[ied] . . . to bring down Jeffrey Epstein.” Bradley J. Edwards with Brittany Henderson, Relentless Pursuit at 380 (Gallery Books 2020). 233 [M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was

ho wished to be heard were permitted to speak at the plea hearing. 346 Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. 347 Before Epstein’s state court plea hearing, Edwards also began representing the victim who became Jane Doe #2. Although OPR focuses on Villafaña’s communications with Edwards in this section, OPR not

n.” 356 Villafaña stated that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

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

ents of the NPA as early as October of 2008. She was also provided pro bono counsel with the assistance of the Government prior to her retaining Mr. Edwards, see Villafana Declaration, Dkt. 14 at pg 4, Motion at 25 ("the Special Agents have said that they explained that Epstein would plead guilty to sta

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

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

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).

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

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