Epstein Secrets

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

protected, not the relationship as a whole. McKay v. C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). VII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD, AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Epstein also asserts that the subpoenas seeking the computer equipment are unreasonable because they are oppressive, overbroad, and unparticulariz

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

re protected, not the relationship as a whole. McKay' C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). VII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD, AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Epstein also asserts that the subpoenas seeking the computer equipment are unreasonable because they are oppressive, overbroad, and unparticulariz

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

protected, not the relationship as a whole. McKay v. C.I.R., 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). VII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD, AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Epstein also asserts that the subpoenas seeking the computer equipment are unreasonable because they are oppressive, overbroad, and unparticulariz