Epstein Secrets

orneys. 425 U.S. at 391. The taxpayers were under investigation by the IRS for criminal and civil violations of the federal income tax code. Id. The Supreme Court held that the mere production of the documents did not compel the taxpayers to become witnesses against themselves, and ordered compliance with the

s the burden of the defendant to show that the act of producing responsive documents would entail testimonial self- incrimination. United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). In many cases, the existence and location of papers are a foregone conclusion and the defendant adds little or

) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacquainted, and one which might involve a betrayal of the secrets of the gra

papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal EFTA00211789 citation and quotations omitted)); United States v. Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any

pers" cannot be obtained through compulsory process from a target/defendant has been eroded to the point where it no longer has any force or effect. The Supreme Court has written, as early as 1976, that "the continued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boy

ntents of private papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal citation and quotations omitted)); United States, Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any

) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacquainted, and one which might involve a betrayal of the secrets of the gra

te papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal EFTA00223005 citation and quotations omitted)); United States, Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any