Epstein Secrets

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

2. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014078 --- PAGE BREAK --- 100 CASSELL ET AL. [Vol. 104 Other states also expressly extend nights before the filing of charges. Colorado guarantees rights at “all critical stages of the criminal justice process|,]” which includes both the filing of charges and the decision to not file

g to challenge those decisions. '24 A few [*882] limited exceptions prove the rule. In cases of private criminal complaints filed by alleged victims, Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania authorize judges to review public prosecutors' decisions not to charge. !?> Even when statutes grant courts the

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

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

d a possible consultation right long before formal charges are filed. [*100] Other states also expressly extend rights before the filing of charges. Colorado guarantees rights at "all critical stages of the criminal justice process[,]" which includes both the filing of charges and the decision to not file

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.

o-counsel Robert Hoyt, Arnon Siegel, and Karan Bhatia of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering, and Sean Kendall of Boulder, Colorado. 30 42 U.S.C. 10606(b)(4) (1994) (repealed 2004). The victims also relied on a similar provision found in the authorization for closed circuit broad