Epstein Secrets

overnment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United Stales, Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States' Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These

/21/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANDE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHT ACT AND TO HAVE THEIR UNREDACTED PLEADI

ners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reach

respond to the victims' motion for a finding of violation of the CVRA is untimely, as that is when the victims must begin drafting reply pleadings. See United States! Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (nth Cir. 1983) (listing factors to be considered in determining whether motion to intervene is timely). CERT

6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction"); Waytel United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985) (the decision whether to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review," and "not readily susceptible to th

erty interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts arc hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been created. See Collins I. City of Harker Heights. Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 5 EFTA00177151 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 6 of 9 125 (1992)("As a general

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[Tjhe United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ernment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and asso

rty interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts are hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been created. Site Collins v. City of Harker Heights. Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992X"As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because g

URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE Respondent, Unit

erty interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts are hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been created. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas 503 U.S. 1 15, 5 EFTA00208110 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 6 of 9 125 (1992)("As a general