Epstein Secrets

n, 341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

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

341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States v. Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fi

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

, 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States I Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

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