district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin,” victims of a federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific

respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy,’ ... may apply before any prosecution is underway" (quoting /8 U.S.C. § 377I(a))); cf. United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (assuming without deciding that some federal victim rights may apply before any prosecution is under way, b

isions, which provides further 79 victims of a support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin, federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affec

ther lying or is unworthy of the responsibility of representing the possibly guilty in order to prevent the conviction of the possibly imnocent. The Rubin case itself was convoluted in the extreme. It actually involved several cases. Rubin claimed to have evidence that her estranged husband, who she adm

s one court has explained, the CVRA does "not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 425 (E D N Y. 2008); see also United States a Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that CVRA did not empower