Epstein Secrets

ested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. ate United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly auth

ndants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. Ev. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(eX6) [now Rule 11(f)] is to promote the unrestrained candor which pr

University of Florida Levin College of Law, J.D. College of Wiliam & Mary, B.A. ViAth Honors Accolades AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale- Hubbell In the business arena, Joe focuses on litigation related to partnership disputes, corporate dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty and other breach

ion, Palm Beach State College, 2006 - present Professional & Civic Involvement Indiana State University Department of Construction Risk Management, Advisory Committee Member The Florida Bar, Trial Lawyers Section Florida Defense Lawyers Association Defense Research Institute. Trial Tactics and Construction Law S

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, fa where production would 2 EFTA00222443

ndants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. It Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. By. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(eX6) [now Rule 11(01 is to promote the unrestrained candor which pro