Epstein Secrets

t's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion; t

Even if the act of production were testimonial for purposes of Doe , production can be refused only if the act of production also is incriminating . Butcher , 753 F.2d at 469-70. In other words, the act of authentication is incriminating only if the documents are incriminating. As explained above, Epstei

rt's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen I Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion; th

Even if the act of production were testimonial for purposes of Doe , production can be refused only if the act of production also is incriminating . Butcher , 753 F.2d at 469-70. In other words, the act of authentication is incriminating only if the documents are incriminating. As explained above, Epstei

ourt's earlier cases [referring to Boyd], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion; th

Even if the act of production were testimonial for purposes ofDoe, production can be refused only if the act of production also is incriminating. Butcher, 753 F.2d at 469-70. In other words, the act of authentication is incriminating only if the documents are incriminating. As explained above, Epstei