Epstein Secrets

ex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations .... The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sou

dence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See, e.g., Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that w

Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (ED. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is soug

dence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See. e.g., Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that w

x. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sou

dence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See. e.g., Cox v. Treadway. 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that w

x. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sou

dence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See. e.g., Cox v. Treadway. 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that w

x. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sou

dence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See. e.g., Cox v. Treadway. 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that w

x. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sou

dence of prior statements (including inconsistent statements) given by witnesses whom law-enforcement has previously interviewed. See. e.g., Cox v. Treadway. 75 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony of prosecutor about prior inconsistent statements that w