Epstein Secrets

—and we needn't do so even in this case. We cite Professor Cassell's article here (and elsewhere) for several reason

agreement that these "proceeding"-focused rights apply only after the filing of a complaint or criminal charges. See Reply in Supp. of Pet. at 17; Paul G. Cassell, et aL, Crime Picini's' Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims' Rights Act Before Criminal Charges Are Filed, 104 J. of

they assert that the term "case" can "refer both to a judicial case before a court and an investigative case pursued by a law enforcement officer," Cassell et al., supra, at 72 (emphasis added).9 Although it's true, at least in the abstract, that the term "case" can mean either thing, in legal parlanc

oid the interpretation that "engenders constitutional issues if a reasonable alternative interpretation poses no constitutional question." See C a Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 864, 109 S. Ct. 2237, 2241, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). Therefore, Judge Newsom's interpretation should be adopted. Thi

ecution.' " Id. at 22. Thus, she says, our interpretation impermissibly renders the terms "detection" and "investigation" meaningless. Id.; see also Paul G. Cassell et al., Crime Victims' Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims' Rights Act Before Criminal Charges Are Filed, 104 J. Crim

9:08-cv-80736-KAM Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CT

ority's post-charge model avoids those problems, the Court is compelled by the canon of constitutional avoidance to adopt the latter model. See?. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 864, 109 S. Ct. 2237, 2241, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989) ("It is our settled policy to avoid an interpretation of a feder

s of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in extradition cases." 67. A majority of their Lordships, Lord Hoffmann, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell, found that, on the basis of this paragraph, in the extradition context, a distinction had to be drawn between torture and lesser forms of ill-trea

test laid down in Wilson, cited above: see Jones 'El v. Berge 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2001) (concerning Wisconsin's "supermax" prison) and Madrid v. Gomez 889 F. Supp 1146 (1995) (concerning detention at Pelican Bay State Prison, California). However, the subjective test laid down in Wilson may not be