Epstein Secrets

the haydays of the Warren Court. Many dealt with the rights of indigent defendants—an issue that came to the fore in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon versus Weinright, decided toward the end of the year of my Bazelon clerkship. That decision ruled that every indigent criminal defendant in a serious

tion of JFK, to the forced resignation of Richard Nixon, to the Chappaquiddick investigation of Ted Kenne

e proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural standards to victim-related subpoenas,

broadly permits the court in both civil and criminal cases to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 49° And before Gideon v. Wainwright, *°° courts could request 45 Td. 46 Td. 47 Tn possible response to such concerns as I raise here, the Advisory Committee modified the

quash subpoena directed to kidnapping victim's father for lack of materiality). 93 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(Q). °4 See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 689 (1974). 95 See id. at 699. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017739 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 26 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *879

th civil and criminal cases. 3!! While these cases do not directly involve [*913] appointment of counsel for crime victims, their principles 309 Cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963) (discussing "fairness" to the defendant as a reason for recognizing a right to appointed counsel). 310 150 C