Epstein Secrets

e all federal prosecutors are located) but other agencies as well, such 155 150 Cona. REc. 7303 (2004) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). 156 Iq 157 See SUSAN EstRICH, REAL Rape 50-51 (1987) (describing how a rape victim’s sexual history may be used against her in court proceedings), Beloof, supra note 38, at 309-1

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

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

t sexual conduct because in rape prosecutions "the material issue is on the willingness or reluctance of the prosecutrix - an act of the mind"). 181 Susan Estrich, Real Rape 8 (1987). 182 See id. at 8-22 (describing traditional rape definitions, spousal exception, evidentiary rules, and police responses to rap

ims in negotiating active criminal proceedings." !©* OLC then asserted: 155 150 Cong. Rec. 7303 (2004) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). 156 Td. 157 See Susan Estrich, Real Rape 50-51 (1987) (describing how a rape victim's sexual history may be used against her in court proceedings); Beloof, supra note 38, at 309-1

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