Epstein Secrets

sis to deny the pending pro hac vice motion. See Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 441 (1985)

essor Cassell has developed a specialized expertise in crime victims' rights, an area in which he has co-written a leading law school casebook. See Beloof, Cassell & Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure (3d ed. North Carolina Academic Press 2010). He has also litigated crime victims' rights matters before federal cour

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

or sentencing") (discussed at infra notes 524-539 and accompanying text). 475, United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (Sth Cir. 1975). 476 In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 787 (3d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629-30 (Sth Cir. 1981). 417 Accord United States v. Heaton, 458 F.

ndant has the right to be present." *° The amendment further allows victims to be heard at bail, plea, and sentencing hearings. 7° 16 See generally Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 15, at ch. 1; Douglas E. Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255 [hereinafter

release of the defendant "will endanger the safety of any other person"). 329 United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (Sth Cir. 1975). 330 In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 787 (3d Cir. 2000). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017762 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 49 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *919 (c) Victim'