Epstein Secrets

a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business d

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the gover

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's dismissal

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0