Epstein Secrets

evidence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.' In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One of the most significant, if not th

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

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00211781 of the most signi

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

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00222997 of the most signi

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