Epstein Secrets

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

uotation marks omitted). ™ See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 75 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972)). 76 See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). ” OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14

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

quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). 7 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 n

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

ement effort. For a rare example, see Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 91-93 (1985). 35. See U.S. Const. amend. V (Double Jeopardy Clause); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 136-39 (1959) (affirming power of state to prosecute defendant after a federal prosecution for the same bank robbery); United States v