Epstein Secrets

6, 1998, at BS. 22 Victims' Rights Amendment. Hearing on S.J. Res. 6 Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 105th Cong. 64 (1997) (statement of Janet Reno, U.S. Att'y Gen.). 30 See www.nveap.org (last visted Dec. 30, 2007). 3! For a comprehensive history of victims' efforts to pass a constitutional amendment,

utional amendment, sce Jon Kyl, Steven J. Twist & Stephen Higgins, On the Wings of Their Angels, the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preseon, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 581, 583-91 (2005). 32 §.J. Res. 52, 104th Cong. (1996). 33S, Rep. No. 108-191, a

able to reflect the new role of victims throughout the Rules. Moreover, Congress intended the CVRA to be "a formula for success" and a "model for our States." + The only way the federal rules could serve as a model, I argued, was by fully implementing victims’ rights. I then proposed twenty-eight specific

witnesses."). 441 See, e.g., United States v. Pearson, 340 F.3d 459, 468 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Barrett, 766 F.2d 609, 617 (ist Cir. 1985); United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 910 (6th Cir. 1970). 342 631 F.2d 951, 954-55 (9th Cir.

zier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. United Slates, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside the grand jury ro

he Court's earlier finding. The Government also candidly admits that since then "the delay from October 28, 2010 through early March 2011 was due to the United States' efforts to reach [an] amicable resolution of the case . . . .. Gov't Resp. at 46 n.22. 9 The CVRA does not appear to impose specific timelines for v

ring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blal

injustice has been committed by the authorities." Jon Kyl et al., On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nita Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 581, 602 (2005). Such a "grave injustice" is what the Government has caused the v

osecutors never filed charges, government officials had no formal obligations to inform the girls. ' Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 178 Stat. 2260, 2261-65 (2004) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 377] (2012) and 42

in the case). The U.S. Attorney's Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States' Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Reme

following circumstances: CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime has substantial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and proximate

t) the following circumstances: CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime has substantial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and pr

e Department’s conclusions. Senator Kyl directly stated his view that “[w]hen Congress enacted the ' Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260, 2261-65 (2004) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (2012) and 42

in the case). The U.S. Attorney’s Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States’ Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2’s Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Reme

endment prosecution also make clear that a later court hearing would start such a prosecution. For instance, in the Fourth Circuit case cited by OLC, United States v. Alvarado, the court reasons that “the main reason a law enforcement officer files [] a complaint is to establish probable cause for an arrest warr

er leave victims unmentioned. In October 2004, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). ? The CVRA transforms crime victims into participants in the criminal justice process by (among othe

gly expects this to happen. Congress adopted the CVRA with the express goal of making the new law "a formula [*855] for success" and a "model for our States." 111 Congress clearly wants the new law aggressively implemented, thereby avoiding the need for further legislative action or even, possibly, a fede