Epstein Secrets

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

ial burden on the government to prove a grand jury subpoena is necessary and relevant." In re Impounded , 241 F.3d 308, 314 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting R. Enter , supra , 498 U.S. at 298-99). See also Blair v. United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (a grand jury witness cannot refuse to respond to a subpoe

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

ial burden on the government to prove a grand jury subpoena is necessary and relevant." In re Impounded , 241 F.3d 308, 314 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting R. Enter , supra , 498 U.S. at 298-99). See also Blair I United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (a grand jury witness cannot refuse to respond to a subpoen

rom the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence, t

if there is a reasonable possibility that the materials sought by the government will produce information relevant to the grand jury investigation. R. Enter., 498 U.S. at 300. Despite these broad powers, Epstein objects to the subpoenas that specifically call for and describe three computers, arguing th