Epstein Secrets

s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor,. 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court

ts irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants, granted a motion to quash with re

rator exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).16 Finally, and in any event, suppression is not a proper remedy. The defense relies principally on Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), in which the Supreme Court upheld an order 16 To be clear, the defendant's motion concerns the admission of statem

st this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed 13 EFTA00088815 testimony in this case is readily distinguishable from that in Raymond. There, the government gave notice o

s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court

ts irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants, granted a motion to quash with re