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

ws in the context of child abuse prosecutions are not in conflict with constitutional notice requirements."' Young, 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (quoting Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 632 (6th Cir. 2005)). The same is true here. The minor victims in this case cannot reasonably be expected to recall the exact dates

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

ows in the context of child abuse prosecutions are not in conflict with constitutional notice requirements!" Young, 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (quoting Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 632 (6th Cir. 2005)). The same is true here. The minor victims in this case cannot reasonably be expected to recall the exact dates

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

ows in the context of child abuse prosecutions are not in conflict with constitutional notice requirements!" Young, 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (quoting Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 632 (6th Cir. 2005)). The same is true here. The minor victims in this case cannot reasonably be expected to recall the exact dates

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

ws in the context of child abuse prosecutions are not in conflict with constitutional notice requirements.'" Young, 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (quoting Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 632 (6th Cir. 2005)). The same is true here. The minor victims in this case cannot reasonably be expected to recall the exact dates

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

ows in the context of child abuse prosecutions are not in conflict with constitutional notice requirements!" Young, 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (quoting Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 632 (6th Cir. 2005)). The same is true here. The minor victims in this case cannot reasonably be expected to recall the exact dates