Epstein Secrets

Ct. 2749, 2765, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretati

ncluded in other provisions of the same statute."C a Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557,578, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2765, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("[W]here a document has used one term *1237 in one place, and a materi

t for Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel purposes, that a "prosecution" does not begin with the criminal complaint's filing. See P. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) ("The filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution."); see also, e.g., ‘I

as importantly, what it didn't write"); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretatio

ny field of statutory interpretation, it is our duty to respect not only what Congress wrote but, as importantly, what it didn't write"); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 182 (2012) ("The familiar `easy-to-say-so-if-that-is-what-was-meant' rule of statuto

ates v. States, 652 F.3d 734. 741- 42 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d 69, 82—84 (1st Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) (same). Rather, the Sixth Amendment right doesn't attach—because a "prosecution" doesn't begin—until, at the

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)

etween misdemeanor and 65 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d\(3) (2012)). °° Id. 67 Td. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)). 68 Wayne R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 1.2(g), at 11 (Sth ed. 2009) (emphasis added). © OLC CVRA Righ

, 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.15 (citing Hanrahan v. United States, 348 F.2d 363, 366 n.6 (D.C.

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)(

442 U.S. 330,339 (1979). 6 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting /8 U.S.C. § 3771(d)G) (2012)). 66 Td. 67 Id. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)). 68 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 1.2(g), at 11 (5th ed. 2009) (emphasis added). 6° OLC CVRA Rig

on also make clear that a later court hearing would start such a prosecution. For instance, in the Fourth Circuit case cited by OLC, United States v. Alvarado, the court reasons that "the main reason a law enforcement officer files [] a complaint is to establish probable cause for an arrest warrant. The cri