Epstein Secrets

17 U.S. 433 (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 M

401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44 In re Grand Jucv Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136 In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

th Amendment 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 c

a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business d

417 U.S. 433 (1974) 137 vii EFTA00077613 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. Mwphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 144 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 223 Nyhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Nix

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199

th Amendment 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 c

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

417 U.S. 433 (1974) 137 vii EFTA00039428 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. Mwphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 144 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 223 Nyhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Nix

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199

th Amendment 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 c

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974) 96 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 108, 117, 118 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 108 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 100 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 149 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 40 N

States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 166 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise"), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 27, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 28, 77, 33 81 1 F.3d 87 (2d

th Amendment 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 c

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the gover

17 U.S. 433 (1974) 137 vii EFTA00103006 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. Mwphy, 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 Nix

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 19

th Amendment 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 c

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm