Epstein Secrets

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin