Epstein Secrets

Kan. 2015) (Sections 3771(a)(1) (right to protection from accused) and Section 3771(a)( ght to confer) do not apply in pre-charging context); In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 *2 (_. Ind. 2010) ("the U.S. Attorney didn't have an obligation under the CVRA to confer with [victims] until after was filed and

monetary reward provisions of 18 U.S.C. 2255 continued after September 24, 2007. Also, appeals to the Department of Justice (to both the head of the Criminal Division and then to Deputy Attorney General Filip) by Epstein's counsel contesting whether there was a sufficient jurisdictional basis for the underlying f

, 2005 WL 2875220, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005); Criminal Division's Victim Notification Program, U.S. Dep't of Justic

at victims acquire rights even before a prosecution begins. The District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held to the same effect in In re Petersen. 7* There, the court held that a victim's right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy "may apply before a

. 76 Id. Petersen also held that one specific CVRA right - the right to confer - only applies after charges have been filed. Id. But the authorities Petersen cites for that proposition prove no such thing. Confusingly, Petersen cited the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Dean for support; but (as just explained ab

rorism cases to large numbers of victims. See, e.g., United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005); Criminal Division's Victim Notification Program, U.S. Dep't of Justice, hittp://goo.gl/6H6IEk (last visited Dec. 4, 2013). 201 527 F.3d 391 (Sth Cir. 2008). DAVID SCHO

t victims acquire rights even before a prosecution begins.” The District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held to the same effect in In re Petersen. There, the court held that a victim’s right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy “may apply before any

orism cases to large numbers of victims. See, e.g., United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005); Criminal Division’s Victim Notification Program, U.S. DEP’T OF Justice, http://goo.gl/6H6IEk (last visited Dec. 4, 2013). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014073 --- PAGE BREAK --- 20

to be particularly successful. '°? The federal government seems to share that view. The Justice Department created a Public Integrity Section within the Criminal Division in 1976, !>4 and in the four decades since, federal prosecutors have [*893] aggressively prosecuted conduct of state and local officials that it det

as well as juries) are unduly skeptical of rape allegations. '7? And there is good evidence that law enforcement agencies’ responses to 19 See In re Petersen, No. 2:10-CV-298 RM, 2010 WL 5108692, at 2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010) (concluding that prosecutors control charging decisions and certain victim rights