Epstein Secrets

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.

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

(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

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I 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

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden