Epstein Secrets

all documents and discussion of the Jane Doe 102 case, including the settlement of those claims (Motion in Limine 17) «0.0... eeeeeeeeees 26 18. The Cassell/Edwards v. Dershowitz litigation is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 18) oo. eeeesseesseceseesseesseceseesseesseceseesseeeseeeseeessesseessa

v Carvige ing. 526 N.Y 8.20 483 (2d Dept 1988 cos savesowussnsseneesessens smusanssomneasecceeumesvs 35 Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 459-60 (Sth Cir. 1996)... ce ceeceseeeseeseeeseeeseeeseeseeeneeees 10 Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 646-47, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). ....... 3

I electronically served this Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion In Limine via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 P| Ft. Lau

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.

en prosecutors and defense because prosecutor had not consulted with victim in violation of 1/8 U.S.C. § 3771). 8 See In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 395 (Sth Cir. 2008) (acknowledging lower court's interpretation of § 3771(a) before any prosecution is underway); Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1342

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

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

e Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 McGeorge L. Rev. 689, 693 (2002). 6 527 F.3d 391 (Sth Cir. 2008). Other aspects of the case are discussed in Paul G. Cassell & Steven Joffee, The Crime Victims' Expanding Role in a System of Public Prosecutio