Epstein Secrets

this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United States v. Walker , 2007 WL 1743273 (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2007). The court wrote: Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritt

01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileged. Nor does the general p

d this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United States I Walker , 2007 WL 1743273 (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2007). The court wrote: Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritt

-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States I Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileged. Nor does the general p

ing in United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (761 Cir. 1996) — the case on which Petitioners primarily rely -- is entirely confused and off-base. In Walker, the issue was whether defendant, who was serving a sentence for a federal parole violation when he was indicted on a new federal charge, was entit

ity is "at its most limited when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations." Id. In Fokker, the question before the D.C. Circuit was whether the district court had the power to decline to enter a speedy trial waiver because it believed that the terms of the DPA were too lenie

efendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. -19- EFTA00179118 United States v. Walker, 2007 WL 1743273 (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2007). The court wrote: Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritte

91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileged. Nor does the general