Epstein Secrets

ts that the CVRA enumerates . . . do not vest a victim with a substantive interest in the outcome of a sentencing proceeding. ... And as we noted in Johnson, these underlying principles do not afford a crime victim a substantive interest in the outcome of a criminal trial." Alcatel-Lucent 688 F.3d at 13

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under II Government Ex

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 21 EFTA00210617 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, 4.74 Nin

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S

led the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 I. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Pau

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S