Epstein Secrets

ne of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

ant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination."' See generally. United States v. Apfelbaum. 445 9 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.

e safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

00222079 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6 circumstances."). Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

ant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." See generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980)). See also, United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U