Epstein Secrets

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

e, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who arc under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — namely, "that the liberty and property con

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

e, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — namely, "that the liberty and property con

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

e, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — namely, "that the liberty and property con

uest was denied; [*959] (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days of the deni

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

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

ime that the Justice Department filed this brief, no Court of Appeals agreed with the Tenth Circuit. At the time, three

mous rul- ings that crime victims were entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 2005); Kenna v. US. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Ca., 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Walsh, 229 Fed.Appx. 58, at 60 (8rd Cir. 2007). My next ques