Epstein Secrets

reasonableness."); / Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 1565, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (under the Due Process Clause and 11 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), prosecutors must disclose all evidence, upon request, that is favorable to the def

, the CVRA was enacted to protect crime victim& rights and ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process. See Moussaoui 483 F.3d at 234; Kenna, 435 F.3d at 1016. In this context, a comprehensive construction of the victims' rights to confer and be treated fairly in § 3771(a)(5) and ? 1(a)

e victims' rights and ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007);? II Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice s

and "respect for the victim's dignity and privacy" have created a substantive due process right. Similarly unavailing is petitioners' reliance upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and other criminal law cases finding a due process obligation on the government's part to disclose exculpatory and

process; the Act is therefore silent and unconcerned with victims' rights to file civil claims against their assailants." Id. at 234-35, citin In re Kenna, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006). There is no criminal justice process in the instant case since no criminal charges have been filed. Even if t

e attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady' Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would p

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 attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would

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 attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would p

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

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

lso United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002) (quoting Weatherford, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). 301 United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 302 (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