Epstein Secrets

, the [attorney-client] privilege does not bar revelation of the original location or conduction of the evidence in question." Hunter at *3 (quoting Meredith at 54). While the investigator could not testify about the substance of any communications with the attorney, he had to tell the jury where the wall

n it over to the prosecution. Therefore, introduction of the evidence did not implicate the privilege. Hunter at *2 (citing Clutchette at 1472). In Meredith , a murder suspect informed his attorney that the murder victim's wallet was in the garbage can behind the suspect's house and the attorney sent a p

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any o

se arguments fail for the same reasons. First, the computers and their contents are not "communications," they are pre-existing documents and, as in Ratliff , putting them into the hands of an attorney (or his investigator) does not convert them into "privileged" communications. Second, the removal of th

, the [attorney-client] privilege does not bar revelation of the original location or conduction of the evidence in question." Hunter at *3 (quoting Meredith at 54). While the investigator could not testify about the substance of any communications with the attorney, he had to tell the jury where the wall

n it over to the prosecution. Therefore, introduction of the evidence did not implicate the privilege. Hunter at *2 (citing Clutchette at 1472). In Meredith , a murder suspect informed his attorney that the murder victim's wallet was in the garbage can behind the suspect's house and the attorney sent a p

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff I Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any

se arguments fail for the same reasons. First, the computers and their contents are not "communications," they are pre-existing documents and, as in Ratliff , putting them into the hands of an attorney (or his investigator) does not convert them into "privileged" communications. Second, the removal of th

, the [attorney-client] privilege does not bar revelation of the original location or conduction of the evidence in question." Hunter at *3 (quoting Meredith at 54). While the investigator could not testify about the substance of any communications with the attorney, he had to tell the jury where the wall

n it over to the prosecution. Therefore, introduction of the evidence did not implicate the privilege. Hunter at *2 (citing Clutchette at 1472). In Meredith , a murder suspect informed his attorney that the murder victim's wallet was in the garbage can behind the suspect's house and the attorney sent a p

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff. Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any oth

the [attorney- client] privilege does not bar revelation of the original location or conduction of the evidence in question." Hunter at *3 (quoting Meredith at 54). While the investigator could not testify about the substance of any communications with the attorney, he had to tell the jury where the wall

e defendant in Hunter, the defendant argued that the anomey-client privilege precluded admission of the receipts against him at trial. Similarly, in Meredith, the defense investigator found the murder victim's wallet based on information obtained from the defendant and turned it over to defendant's attorn

.. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any o