Epstein Secrets

ctims identified. F2 Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in asserting that Epstein's criminal conduct first came to the attention of the FBI when the City of Palm Beach Police Department became concerned about the manner in which the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was handling the state prosecution. The investigation of t

l 's offense-specific definition an exception for crimes that are `factually related' to a charged offense. Several of these courts have interpreted Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 (1977) and Maine v. Moulton , 474 U.S. 159 — both of which were decided well before McNeil — to support this view, which

ctims identified. F2 Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in asserting that Epstein's criminal conduct first came to the attention of the FBI when the City of Palm Beach Police Department became concerned about the manner in which the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was handling the state prosecution. The investigation of t

l 's offense-specific definition an exception for crimes that are `factually related' to a charged offense. Several of these courts have interpreted Brewer. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 (1977) and Maine. Moulton , 474 U.S. 159 — both of which were decided well before McNeil — to support this view, which res

United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 19

rcement. During that period of time, the victims would not have had rights under the CVRA. In 2006, Epstein’s acts of abuse came to the attention of the Palm Beach Police Department, which began investigating the case.'°° At this point, once again, the victims would not have had rights under the proposed CVRA test. The CVRA exten