Epstein Secrets

public officials in the Executive Branch. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"); United States'. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 467 (1996) ("power to prosecute" is "one of the core powers of the Executive Branch"). There is no history of "any private prosecutio

rovisions of the CVRA were imported into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (see Fed. R. Crim. P. 60; Advisory Committee Note (2008 Adoption); Kenna'. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) (CVRA was a legislative compromise enacted after an attempt to pass a constitut

g principle that It]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large pan to the separation of powers doctrine — prosecutors are delegates of the President, helping him

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

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

lose the identity of its witnesses before trial. However, the basis for such grants of authority now seems defunct. For instance, in United States v. Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit recognized no authority exists in the federal rules for requiring the government to disclose the names of its witnesses. 74 Still,

disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for court authority in the absence of control

to situations where victims seek "relevant" contents of the presentence report to make a victim impact statement at sentencing. Second, the victim in Kenna sought the entire presentence report. The Ninth Circuit pointedly observed: "We note that Kenna refused the district court's offer to consider disclo