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

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00100062 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidenceobtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fift

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

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00077727 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif

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

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00039542 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif

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

the criminal protective order. (Dkt. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. 95 EFTA00095187 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif

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

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00103120 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif