Epstein Secrets

N OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISOALIFY PROFESSOR CASSELL AND MR. EDWARDS FROM REPRESENTING MS. by and th

No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. PLAINTIFF, CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISOALIFY PROFESSOR CASSELL AND MR. EDWARDS FROM REPRESENTING MS. by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Consolidated Reply in Opposition to Defend

ndersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Consolidated Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Letters, Construed as Motions to Disqualify Professor Paul Cassell and Mr. Edwards from Representing Ms. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should deny both of Defendant's Letter Motions, and grant Profes

essor Cassell has developed a specialized expertise in crime victims' rights, an area in which he has co-written a leading law school casebook. See Beloof, Cassell & Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure (3d ed. North Carolina Academic Press 2010). He has also litigated crime victims' rights matters before federal cour

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

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.

ndant has the right to be present." *° The amendment further allows victims to be heard at bail, plea, and sentencing hearings. 7° 16 See generally Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 15, at ch. 1; Douglas E. Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255 [hereinafter

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

CTIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3-39 (3d ed. 2010) (describing reforms from a historical perspective), see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012). T See BELOOF, CASSELL & 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

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

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

ctims in Criminal Procedure 3-39 (3d ed. 2010) (describing reforms from a historical perspective); see also, e.g., /8 U.S.C. § 377/(a) (2012). 7 See Beloof, Cassell & 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

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

ictims Fairly: Integrating Victims into the Federal Rules o Criminal Procedure 2007 Reporter 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861 * Length: 59852 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2002-07. Thanks to

in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 835, 852-924 [hereinafter Cassell, Proposed Amendments]. 5 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (a)(8). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017637 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 3 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *865

J. Int'l L. 37 (1996); Steven J. Twist, The Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment and Two Good and Perfect Things, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 369. 7 See generally Beloof, Cassell & Twist, supra note 6, at 29-38; Douglas Evan Beloof, The Third Wave of Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255; Cassell, Balancin