Epstein Secrets

tment power is limited. See, e.g., Williams, 504 U.S. at 54-55 (Court cannot require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956) (Court cannot create rule permitting defendants to challenge grand jury indictments because of inadeq

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

ment power is limited. See, e.g., Williams , 504 U.S. at 54-55 (Court cannot require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); Costello v. United States , 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956) (Court cannot create rule permitting defendants to challenge grand jury indictments because of inade

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

ment power is limited. See, e.g., Williams , 504 U.S. at 54-55 (Court cannot require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); Costello I United States , 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956) (Court cannot create rule permitting defendants to challenge grand jury indictments because of inadeq

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