5
Shared Docs
2
Same-Page
6 / 5
Mentions
President's delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985); quoting U.S. Const., Art. II § 3; citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 547)
V-MARRAMOHNSON EFTA00208059 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04107/2011 Page 24 of 54 In Sieverding v. United States Dep't of Justice, 693 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2010), the district court discussed a series of claims brought by the Sieverdings, a husband and wife so well known to
President's delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985); quoting U.S. Const., Art. II § 3; citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 547)
s been filed." 23 EFTA00078857 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 24 of 54 In Sieverding v. United States Dep't of Justice, 693 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2010), the district court discussed a series of claims brought by the Sieverdings, a husband and wife so well known to
ARTICLE: Treating Crime Victims Fairly: Integrating Victims into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
is reasonable in a particular case) [hereinafter Dep't of Justice, Attorney General Guidelines]; see also U.S. Dep'
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,
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017676 →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 And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA.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
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017676 →Article: Criminal Enforcement Redundancy: Oversight of Decisions Not to Prosecute
97 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (holding that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required under the Due Process Clause). ° United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 456-71 (1996) (examining selective prosecution claim based on racial bias); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016511 →ed States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1342-45 (SD. Fla. 2011) (recognizing that 1/8 U.S.C. § 3771(a) can apply before formal charges are filed); Jordan v. Dep't of Justice, 173 F. Supp. 3d 44, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 395); United States v. BP Prod. N. Am., Inc., No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321, a
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016534 →ARTICLE: Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
istration of Justice and the Enforcement of Laws: Dep't of Justice Oversight Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm.,
246 150 Cong. Rec. $10,911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added). 247 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). 248 150 Cong. Rec. $4264 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added). 249 See 18 U.S.C.
Page: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017750 →Entities connected to both Armstrong and Dep't of Justice

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONLeon Black
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Scarlett Johansson
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSON
Donald Trump
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION
Kenneth Marra
PERSONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Michael Jackson
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Eric Trump
PERSONWayte
PERSON
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONMartin Weinberg
PERSON