Epstein Secrets

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

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

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

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

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

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden