Epstein Secrets

victims.” The victims sought appellate review in the Fifth Circuit.°’ There, the court concurred with the district c

itution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 10601, 10606-07 (2006)). 3 See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325, 328 (10th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (refusing to enforce a victim’s right to attend a trial), Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates?, supra n

stitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.$$/0601, 10606-07 (2006)). 2 See, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325, 328 (10th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (refusing to enforce a victim's right to attend a trial); Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates?, supra n

before charges have been filed, courts have uniformly agreed with the victims’ position. Perhaps the leading case to date to assess this question is the Fifth Circuit's decision in In re Dean. °° There, a wealthy corporate criminal defendant reached a generous plea deal with the Government - a deal that the Governmen

participants in the criminal justice process. As the Fifth Circuit explained in reversing a trial court which had al

o. 101-647, § 502(b) (1996). 2 Id. § 502(b)(1). 3 Id. § 502(b)(3). 24 Id. § 502(b)(5). 25 Id. § 502(b)(4). 26 Id. § 502(a). 27 United States v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809, 814-815 (10th Cir. 1998). See generally Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates, supra note 6, at 515-22 (discussing this case in greater det