Epstein Secrets

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

ers that are the subject of this motion, but Epstein had already removed the computers from the home. ( See Recarey Declaration.) FlAs explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a ba

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

ers that are the subject of this motion, but Epstein had already removed the computers from the home. ( See Recarey Declaration.) FlAs explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a ba

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

rposes of Doe, and, thus, the subpoenas are enforceable (regardless of the computers' contents). Id. at 93-94 (citation omitted)." "As explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a b