Epstein Secrets

m Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person . . . against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) t

ney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to EFTA00211784 assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher , 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher , the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amen

articularity that it knows of the existence and location of subpoenaed documents.") (citation EFTA00211790 omitted). In this case, as set forth in the Recarey Affidavit and the two Ex Pane Affidavits, the government already knows that: (1) the computers exist; (2) they are in the custody or control of Riley; and (3)

m Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person . . . against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher I United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) te

ney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to EFTA00223000 assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher , 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher , the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amen

articularity that it knows of the existence and location of subpoenaed documents.") (citation EFTA00223006 omitted). In this case, as set forth in the Recarey Affidavit and the two Ex Pane Affidavits, the government already knows that: (1) the computers exist; (2) they are in the custody or control of Riley; and (3)

use the demanded documents contained incriminating evidence, whether EFTA00222963 written by others or voluntarily prepared by himself.") (quoting Fisher I United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409-10 (1976); and citing United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984)); In ?V Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 1 F.3d

te papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all of the documents contained on the three computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Affidavit, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. (Recarey Aff. at ¶ _.) Video