Epstein Secrets

the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings." United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 299 (1991) (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 EFTA00179094 importance." In

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

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

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

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

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