Epstein Secrets

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

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 377I(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession• Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00208109 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

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 pre-sentence investigation repor

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

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 EFTA00177150 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

, dots 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'. 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 pre-sentence investigation repor

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

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

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

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

withhold relevant information contrary to its position in court. In their motion (at pp. 5-9), the victims explained why fairness entitles them to "Brady" information (i.e., information contradicting the Government's position) no less than criminal defendants. In response, the Government does not eve

victims 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. 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

withhold relevant information contrary to its position in court. In their motion (at pp. 5-9), the victims explained why fairness entitles them to "Brady" information (i.e., information contradicting the Government's position) no less than criminal defendants. In response, the Government does not eve

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