Epstein Secrets

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

Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits lawye

the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party

.net Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pik

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

th.net Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike

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.”

a.com Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits lawyerswilli