Epstein Secrets

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

t 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 victims here to suffer. If there were any doubt about what a "case

18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4)." United States. Okun, 2009 WL 790042 at *2 (E.D.Va. 2009). Still another decision at odds with the Government's position is United States' Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). This decision is instructive because it not only explains that victims have rights before the formal filing

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

t al., On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louania Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 581, 602 (2005). Such a "grave injustice" is what the Government has caused the victims here to suffer. If there were any doubt about what a "case

ing crime victims informed. Just as the Government cannot illegally agree to run a sentence on a new crime concurrently with a probation revocation, United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996), so too here it cannot illegally agree not to prosecute a sex offender without first conferring with his vict

t al., On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louania Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 581, 602 (2005). That "grave injustice" is exactly what the authorities committed here — the Government illegally entered into an agreement dispo

ing crime victims informed. Just as the Government cannot illegally agree to run a sentence on a new crime concurrently with a probation revocation, United States I Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996), so too here it cannot illegally agree not to prosecute a sex offender without first conferring with his victi

t al., On the Wings of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louania Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 581, 602 (2005). That "grave injustice" is exactly what the authorities committed here — the Government illegally entered into an agreement dispo