Epstein Secrets

Docket 02/04/2010 Page 2 of 14 3 Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is acco

privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making

n FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 2 of 10 - 3 in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded “liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure,” Hoffman v. United Stat

ified and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 3 of 10 4 de

.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is acco

privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making

nformal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings." See Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- by-c

668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing 2 EFTA00592192 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 3 of 14 Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure," Hoffman v. United States

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- 3

ered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 3 of 10 in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure," Hoffman v. United State

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this 3 EFTA00728618 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 4

mal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166.67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case-by-ca

mal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166.67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case-by-ca