Epstein Secrets

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

dering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substantial injustice on another." Walters a City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1149 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Of course the effect on innoc

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

v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475 (1973) (finding no constitutional barrier to reciprocal discovery rules that act as a "two-way street"); cf. Forsythe v. Walters, 38 F. App'x 734, 737 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding that "application of the CVRA does not exact a punishment and therefore the CVRA can not violate the Ex

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

dering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substantial injustice on another." Walters v. City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1149 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Of course the effect on inno

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