Epstein Secrets

acts, “they would have taken steps to object” to the plea agreement, and that they believed criminal prosecution to be “extremely important”). 4 See ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING Law: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 56 (2012). °° 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights), id. § 3771(c)

re formal charges are filed. 27 Ariz. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-4401(6) (2010) (emphasis added), see State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 150 P.3d 778, 780-81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting the original version defined a criminal offense as a violation of a statute). °28 Under Arizona law, the “rights and duties that are e

protected rights under the Act even before charges are filed. [*73] C. COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT CRIME VICTIMS HAVE CVRA RIGHTS BEFORE CHARGING 4 See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 56 (2012). % 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights); id. § 3771(c)(

ws by State, supra note 218. 27 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4401(6) (2010) (emphasis added); see State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 150 P.3d 778, 780-81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (noting the original version defined a criminal offense as a violation of a statute). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017630 --- PAGE BREAK ---

nial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 649, 650 (1976). 5 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). See generally Douglas Evan Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steve J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedu

ses, and the prompt administration of justice. [*879] The Rationale: 191 See, e.g., State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Courts, 836 P.2d 445, 451-52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) (crime victim had the right to deny defendant access to medical records); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290, 1296-97 (Pa. 1992). See genera