Epstein Secrets

Do Not Require Independent Evidence Before An Adverse Inference Can Be Drawn Rather than analyze whether the inference satisfies the two-prong Custer Battles test, Epstein pulls another sentence out of context from the opinion, which he claims forms yet a third prong of what Custer Battles itself

dant’s] seemingly blanket invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination.” Custer Battles, 41 F.Supp.2d at 634-35 (emphasis added). Thus, Custer Battles cautioned against drawing inferences about other people’s state of mind via an adverse inference from defendant Morris’ invocation of his Fifth Amen

such an inference is somehow not proper under the test laid out by United States v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). Custer Battles lays out a two-prong test for deciding whether a factfinder can appropriately draw an adverse inference. The first prong is whether there is “a vali

ether the Fifth Amendment privilege is validly asserted in response to particular questions. This issue is typically resolved on a motion to compel. Custer Battles 415 F. Supp. 2d at 633. If it is determined that the privilege is properly asserted, then adverse inferences are admissible consistent with

some relief to the civil litigant whose case is unfairly prejudicial by a witness' assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ..." United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Basler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) ("the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adver

ether the Fifth Amendment privilege is validly asserted in response to particular questions. This issue is typically resolved on a motion to compel. Custer Battles 415 F. Supp. 2d at 633. If it is determined that the privilege is properly asserted, then adverse inferences are admissible consistent with

some relief to the civil litigant whose case is unfairly prejudicial by a witness' assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ..." United States v. Custer Battles, L.L.C., 415 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006); accord Basler v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 408, 318 (1976) ("the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adver

se liberal discovery rules, and 'undermine[s] to some degree the trial system's capacity to ascertain the truth." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting Robert Heidt, The 8 EFTA00234878 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on

lege without placing the witness in the 'cruel trilemma' of choosing among incrimination, perjury, or contempt." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit has not hesitated to support district courts that draw an adverse inference from