Epstein Secrets

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

ecutorial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (M. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 M. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discret

sinessmen for Free Enterprise v. City of Hollywood, 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, e.g., In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992). Those factors are amply satisfied in this case: there is a strong likelihood that intervenors will prevail on

hin the meaning of the CVRA. As such, they have standing to assert rights under the CVRA, as they have done in this case. See e.g. United States v. Thetford, F. Supp. 2d , 2013 WL 1309851 (ND. Ala. 2013). Presented with these claims, the court is obligated to decide whether, as crime victims, petition

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

rial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (S.D.Fla. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 (N.D.Ala. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's d