Epstein Secrets

ted information only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00067394 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Pag

t trial. Id• Pillsbury Company 11 EFTA00067393 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 12 of 15 Page 12 v. Conbov, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). 5se also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth

nscend any difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id, at 490; and In re Keller Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a con

-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 9 can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conbov 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, quoted above as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained

ted information only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00222536 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Pag

t trial. Id• Pillsbury Company 11 EFTA00222535 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 12 of 15 Page 12 v. Conbov, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). 5se also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth

AYRAIN09 PaKO PS 4 24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, .gr Hoffman, at 486. In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to appr

convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conbov, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). Certainly, if the USAO decides to prosecute EPSTEIN for an alleged violation of the NPA, it would undoubtedly