Whether the documents that a defense counsel is entitled to have access to prior to an initial Sex Offender Registry hearing also refer to the documents that a defense counsel is entitled to have access to at the time of a sex offender's conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Doe v Pataki, 3 F.Supp.2d 456 (SD NY 1998) provides that the People carry the burden of proving the facts to support the recommended registration classification | level for a defendant's initial sex offender registration, pursuant to NY Correction Law Section 168-n (NY Correction Law Article 168: Sex Offender Registration Act [SORA]) to provide that the due process rights of a defendant includes prehearing discovery. Therefore, defense counsel is entitled by statute to prehearing access to the documents reviewed by the Board of Examiners of Sex | Offenders (NY Correction Law Section 168-1) prior to a hearing where the Defendant is prosecuted to determine his initial SORA registration level. Can the documents that a defense counsel is entitled to have access to "prior" to an _ initial Sex Offender Registry hearing also refer to the documents that a defense counsel is entitled to have access to at the time of a sex offender's conviction? NY Correction Law Section 168-0(2), SORA modification, requires the Defendant to bear the burden of proving the facts to support the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence. ; Can the [p]rocess of using severability to satisfy the cause to disregard the error of taking an appeal with an omission from a SORA modification proceeding to obtain merits that Defendant was deceived to admit to the instant offense at the time of conviction to apply it to questions with regard to not admitting to the sex offense as a penalty for SORA registration [ ] be used to satisfy cause and prejudice to . support a procedurally defaulted claim for coram nobis relief? ii