Epstein Secrets

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif, Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it wi

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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. I Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it