Epstein Secrets

974 'In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. -8- EFTA00179107 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir.

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

. F2In Bonner v. City of Prichard , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacqu

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

ury. UIn Bonner1 City of Prichard , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacqu

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden