Epstein Secrets

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

04/07/2011 Page 4 of 9 2007 WL 951666 at *1. Other attempts to engraft discovery rights onto the CVRA have also been rejected. In United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2007), several victims in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sought access to files and records provided by the govern

e deposition of the Secretary of Agriculture, whose order fixing the maximum rates to be charged at the Kansas City stockyards was being challenged. The Supreme Court observed that the proceeding before the Secretary "has a quality resembling that of a judicial proceeding," and that probing of the mental processes

riminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The CVRA, however, does not provide access to non- public information to crime victims. In United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2007), the court of appeals held that the district court erred when it ordered the government to provide non-public informa

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.

ng given that the CVRA was enacted to protect crime 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 vict

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation o

d for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy; and (3) the request is structured to cover only needed materials. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). 20. Portions of Exhibits 1, 2, an

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

04/07/2011 Page 4 of 9 2007 WL 951666 at *1. Other attempts to engraft discovery rights onto the CVRA have also been rejected. In United States'. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (4h Cir. 2007), several victims in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sought access to files and records provided by the governm

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

04/07/2011 Page 4 of 9 2007 WL 951666 at '1. Other attempts to engraft discovery rights onto the CVRA have also been rejected. In United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (41h Cir. 2007), several victims in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sought access to files and records provided by the govern

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

04/07/2011 Page 4 of 9 2007 WL 951666 at '1. Other attempts to engraft discovery rights onto the CVRA have also been rejected. In United States'. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (41h Cir. 2007), several victims in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sought access to files and records provided by the govern

e of personal jurisdiction over them for the claims as pled would not comport with due process. Id. at 93-95. Plaintiffs thereafter sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court of each of these three principal holdings. In response to a request from the Supreme Court, the United States filed an amicus brief on May 29, 2009,

, 4052-53, 4538-39; R.963, Ex. 1, p. 8 (1996 CIA Report). R.1762, Ex. 10, pp. 4-5 (Substitution for the Testimony of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, U.S. v. Moussaoui). JA3764, 4539; R.1257, Ex. 3, p. 18 (Second Report of the United Nations Monitoring Group on Al Qaida). JA3794; R.963, Ex. 1, pp. 7-8 (1996 CIA Repo

p to any and all information in the government's files." United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 425 (E D N Y. 2008); see also United States a Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that CVRA did not empower district court in a civil matter to order disclosure of documents to victims);

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