Epstein Secrets

etition, held on July 11, 2008. The Court discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, (so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. C

does not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. Similarly, in United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime victims invoked the. CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pit-sentence investigation repo

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government'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

etition, held on July 11, 2008. The Court discussed a need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, (so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. C

ided ample information concerning the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and other issues related to the defendants' sentencing. The district court in Coxton found that the victims in that case were present during trial and continued to enjoy access to the United States Attorney's Office. Id. at 740. Th

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (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); Ke

8 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For Interestingly, in In re Stewart, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the CVRA "does not limit the class of victims to those whose identity constitutes an element of the offense or who happen to be identif

ctims cannot review the PSR is that the PSR is already reviewed by the Court. Thus, in the first PSR case cited by the Government, United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), the Court declined to disclose PSR information to the victims because "[n]othing in the PSR enhances or changes