Epstein Secrets

1974) 137 vii EFTA00099948 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 144 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 223 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Mr v. Willi

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

(2d Cir. 1991) 14 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-I5-029, 828 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016) 4, 5, 11 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 2, 6 Murphy v. Waterfront Comm 'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) 2 Palmieri v. State of New York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 14 People v. Gutierrez

overnment there should have either moved to intervene or issued a subpoena to obtain th . For one thing, the Fourth Amendment was not at issue in Manindell, so the Court had no occasion to decide whether a warrant might have been required. For another, Martindell does not speak to what showing would hav

s and that require a subpoena duces tenon of such records to be supported by probable cause). Finally, of course, the government didn't comply with Manindell because it never gave Maxwell notice and an opportunity to quash the subpoena and to challenge the government's misrepresentations through the adver