Epstein Secrets

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i

ubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, whil

Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44; Ponds, 454 F.3d at 325 (D.C. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM D

... 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

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

o Supreme Court precedents, Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, as well as Hubbell's progeny, United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), inform the determination of whether a production of documents in response to a subpoena has a testimonial character.

ting assertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain instances, “‘the act of production’ itself may implicitly communicate ‘statements of fact.’” Id. For

is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of producing documents has “communicative aspe

actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s a

very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecut

t patterns have asked whether the government was aware of the documents’ existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed “ordinary business records.”

2004). The D.C. Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine on facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecutors sought information about possible crimes committed by a defense attorney in the course of repre

.. 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 government has failed to show with reasonable particularity that it knew of the existence and location of most of the subpoenaed documents ... Ponds' act of production was sufficiently testimonial to implicate his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: Id