Epstein Secrets

the respondent was in compliance with a plea agreement-resulting from the first investigation-requiring him to produce information relating to the Whitewater investigation. If the respondent had produced such information in response to the subpoena, it would have constituted testimony that he had Whitew

a real danger of incrimination.” Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the government’s subp

mission that he failed to comply with the plea agreement. Accordingly, it was the testimonial aspect of the production that concerned the Court in Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36-44 120 S.Ct. at 2043-48. At the appellate court level, the court specifically found that respondent’s acknowledgment of the existe

Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the government’s subpoena that “the prosecutor needed respondent’s ass

... Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves." 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957). The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000), that the right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself applies as well to the compelled production of document

"any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out of the Whitewater investigation, in which Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sought broad categories of information from Webster Hubbell, a target of the investigation.

d. In contrast to Fisher, a case in which investigators already knew that documents existed and exactly where they were located, the investigators in Hubbell lacked "any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out

earns & Co., Inc. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 683 (N.D.Ill. 2002). Specifically, production of the documents at issue in Hubbell, concerning the Whitewater investigation, was itself an admission that the defendant had failed to comply with a plea agreement. Id.; Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36-44. Here, unlik

ents contained incriminatory evidence, whether written by others or voluntarily prepared by [the party asserting the privilege].” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). “The act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of i

the government subpoena were not a forgone conclusion, and therefore the act of production had a testimonial aspect. 530 U.S. at 45. The facts in Hubbell are distinguishable from those here. “[I]n Hubbell, the incriminatory nature of the production of the documents sought was obvious.” Bear Stearns

"any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out of the Whitewater investigation, in which Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sought broad categories of information from Webster Hubbell, a target of the investigatio

.. Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves." 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957). The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000), that the right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself applies as well to the compelled production of docume

the respondent was in compliance with a plea agreement-resulting from the first investigation-requiring him to produce information relating to the Whitewater investigation. If the respondent had produced such information in response to the subpoena, it would have constituted testimony that he had Whitewa

ms & Co. l. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant's reliance on United States I. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the government's subpoena that "the prosecutor needed respondent's assi