Epstein Secrets

sentatives have made." C • OAlmendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 237-38,118 S. Ct. 1219, 1277-28, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). To that end, the Supreme Court has cautioned that, "rewrit[ing] a law to conform it to constitutional requirements ... would constitute a serious WESTLAW @ 2020 Thomson Reuters.

, the CVRA was enacted to protect crime victim& rights and ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process. See Moussaoui 483 F.3d at 234; Kenna, 435 F.3d at 1016. In this context, a comprehensive construction of the victims' rights to confer and be treated fairly in § 3771(a)(5) and ? 1(a)

e victims' rights and ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007);? II Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice s

mpt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cX I) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, "[t]he ability to

process; the Act is therefore silent and unconcerned with victims' rights to file civil claims against their assailants." Id. at 234-35, citin In re Kenna, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006). There is no criminal justice process in the instant case since no criminal charges have been filed. Even if t

exas/articles/2020-07-23/court-upholds-alex-jones- sanctions-in-sandy-hook-case> (7/23, Collins) reports from Hartford, Connecticut, "The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a sanction against Infowars host Alex Jones over an angry outburst on his web show against an attorney for relatives of some of t

tween Pompeo and...Rudy Giuliani — which ultimately led to the ouster of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch --" were "deeply disturbing." Kenna testified that "she was unaware of the substance of Giuliani's outreach at the time, but now knows it was an effort to discredit Yovanovitch." Kenna

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, "[tjhe ability to

rocess; the Act is therefore silent and unconcerned with victims' rights to file civil claims against their assailants." Id. at 234-35, citing In rc Kenna, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9i° Cir. 2006). There is no criminal justice process in the instant case since no criminal charges have been filed. Even if t

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

vernment's possession; Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00230167 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no right to financial information from defendant). The CVRA imposes no duty on the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to

tempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

on (no right 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000921 EFTA00230745 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no right to financial information from defendant). The CVRA imposes no duty on the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to

language in [the CVRA] was agreed to."). °! 150 Cong. Rec. H8208-09 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 2004). °2 150 Cong. Rec. $10910 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004). % Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted); accord United St

in opposition to a plea. The prosecutor refused to convey that information to the court and the trial judge accepted the plea. When the issue reached the Utah Supreme Court, the court concluded that the prosecutor had an ethical obligation as an officer of the court to convey that information to the judge: Prosecutors m

n handedly to both prosecution and the defense. Neither side is required to disclose the address or telephone number of a victim, thus complying with the Supreme Court's instruction that "in the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two- 204 See infra notes 528-539 and ac

nment's files"); cf. In re Slier, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a general

ails. The traditional rule of grand jury secrecy may be set aside under certain circumstances prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). The Supreme Court has explained that a party seeking disclosure of grand jury materials must make a showing of a "particularized need." United States v. Aisenberg, 3

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

omehow the "forthwith" deadline in this case had been missed, that fact would not allow it to refuse to enforce Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA rights now. The U.S. Supreme Court has explored a similar question of a missed deadline in connection with restitution for crime victims. Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010),

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

omehow the "forthwith" deadline in this case had been missed, that fact would not allow it to refuse to enforce Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA rights now. The U.S. Supreme Court has explored a similar question of a missed deadline in connection with restitution for crime victims. Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010),