Epstein Secrets

ticle 2 Winter 2014 Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act Bebore Criminal Charges Are Filed Paul G. Cassell Nathanael J. Mitchell Bradley J. Edwards Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc o& Part of the Cr

L & TWIST, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 AM. CRIML. REV. 649, 651-55 (1976). ° Exec. Order 12,360, 47 Fe

The statute that Congress passed to solve these problems—the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004—-gave victims “the right to participate in the 18 See Cassell, supra note 17, at 848-49. For the pros and cons of the amendment as originally introduced, compare Paul G. Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates? A Reply

ustified lethal force, see generally Heather Ann Thompson, Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy (2016). 41 Cf. Paul Cassell, Who Prosecutes the Police? Perceptions of Bias in Police Misconduct Investigations and a Possible Remedy, Wash. Post: Vololkh Conspiracy Blog (Dec.

is, in Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, supra note 60; see also Klaus Sessar, Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, in The Prosecutor 255, 272-73 (William F. McDonald ed., 1979). For the German example of this principle, see Strafprozebetaordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure],§§152, 160, 170, translation at h

chments/2015/02/06/{v2014aprfv_20]6app2.pdf (describing aspects of the "Vulnerable People Priority Goal"). 46 See Lichtblau, supra note 141. 47 See Paul G. Cassell & James R. Marsh, Full Restitution for Child Pornography Victims: The Supreme Court's Paroline Decision and the Need for a Congressional Response, /3

CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT BEFORE CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE FILED Winter, 2014 Reporter 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59 * Length: 23898 words Author: PAUL G. CASSELL*, NATHANAEL J. MITCHELL** and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS*** * Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the Univ

l & Twist, supra note 6, at 3-39 (describing the history of victims’ rights in American law and the early days of the modern movement). 8 See, e.g., William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim L. Rev. 649, 651-55 (1976). ° Exec. Order 12,360, 47 F

tims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 835, 847-50. 18 See Cassell, supra note 17, at 848-49. For the pros and cons of the amendment as originally introduced, compare Paul G. Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates? A Reply

inal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act 2005 Reporter 2005 B.Y.ULL. Rev. 835 * Length: 36451 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law for the S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah and United States District Court Judge for the District of Utah. T

ub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2014 (1984) (directly amending Rule 32). ! Fed. R. Crim. P.32(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). 2 Td. at 32(d)(2)(A). 3 Td. * William F. McDonald, Towards a Bicentennial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 649, 650 (1976). 5 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.

hird Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255 [hereinafter Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights]; Cassell, supra note 15, at 1381- 82. '7 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report 114 (1982). 18 Td. 19 Td. at 63. 20 Td. at 72-73. 21 Td.