Epstein Secrets

t will adequately pro- tect and secure for the defendant the ben- efit of his bargain under the nonprosecu- tion agreement if he is entitled to it." Bailey, 34 F.3d at 691; see Bird, 709 F.2d at 392 (same). Here, Stolt-Nielsen and Wingfield may interpose the Agreement (as a defense to conviction) in

ea immunity from prosecution, but to provide him with a shield against successful prose- cution, available to him as a defense"); United States v. Bailey, 34 F.3d 683, 690- 91 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that an agree- ment "not to prosecute" protected the de- fendant from "the inherent risk of convic- tio

rom federalism and criminal cases; this investigation should have been enjoined if it lacked a reasonable basis or was initiated in bad faith. See Branzburg a Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 699-701, 707-08, 92 S,Ct. 2646, 2665-2666, 2669-2670, 33 LEd.2d 626 (1972); Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Pre

citations omitted). However, the act of production privilege applies only if the production would be "testimonial" and "incriminating." Butcher v. Bailey , 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir 1985) (citing United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 612-13 (1984)). Production of documents may be testimonial in any o

pt for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law or statutory privilege, . . . is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." Branzburg v. Hayes , 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (citations omitted). In R. Enterprises , the Supreme Court held that subpoenas cannot be quashed on the basis o

00179125 omitted). However, the act of production privilege applies only if the production would be "testimonial" and "incriminating." Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir 1985) (citing United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612-13 (1984)). Production of documents may be testimonial in any of

pt for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law or statutory privilege, . . . is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (citations omitted). In R. Enterprises, the Supreme Court held that subpoenas cannot be quashed on the basis of irrelevan