Epstein Secrets

(4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

ccordingly, it is a well-recognized principle that courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent compelling reason. United States v. Dionisio , 410 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1973). A district court also should be mindful of a target's attempts to "saddle a grand jury with mini-trials and preliminary

ty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response to the subpoena" but is instead "the testimon

R. Crim. P. Rule 17(c). See, e.g., R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 299 (Rule 17(c) requires that grand jury subpoenas be reasonable); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973) ("[tjhe Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms to be regar

rty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410:see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response tip the subpoena" but is instead "the testimo

R. Crim. P. Rule 17(c). See, e.g., R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 299 (Rule 17(c) requires that grand jury subpoenas be reasonable); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973) ("[t]he Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms to be regar

TA00179122 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell, 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds, 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Cir.

Accordingly, it is a well-recognized principle that courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent compelling reason. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1973). A district court also should be mindful of a target's attempts to "saddle a grand jury with mini-trials and preliminary