Epstein Secrets

oena threatens to compromise `the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.'" R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 299 (quoting United States v. Johnson , 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). "The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand jury investigation is of paramount importance." In re Grand Jury

Thus, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could be compelled to produce the documents. See also SEC v. Jerry T O'Brien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984) (There is no Fifth Amendment violation against the target of an investigation when a subpoena is issued to third pa

tements elicited from another. . . . It is extortion of information from the accused himself that offends our sense of justice. Id. at 328 (quoting Johnson I United States , 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913)) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privile

us, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could be compelled to produce the documents. See, e.g., SEC I Jerry T O'Brien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984) (There is no Fifth Amendment violation against the target of an investigation when a subpoena is issued to third pa

poena threatens to compromise `the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.'" R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 299 (quoting United States I Johnson , 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). "The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand July investigation is of paramount importance." In re Grand Jury

Thus, the Court found that the accountant did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could be compelled to produce the documents. See also SEC I Jerry T O'Brien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984) (There is no Fifth Amendment violation against the target of an investigation when a subpoena is issued to third pa