Epstein Secrets

district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin,” victims of a federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific

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

respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy,’ ... may apply before any prosecution is underway" (quoting /8 U.S.C. § 377I(a))); cf. United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (assuming without deciding that some federal victim rights may apply before any prosecution is under way, b

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

isions, which provides further 79 victims of a support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin, federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affec

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