Epstein Secrets

and Jury Subpoena Duces Tecutn, 1 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (defendant's personal calendar not protected because voluntarily prepared); Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155, 1168 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant's journal not protected because voluntarily written); United States v. Wuykowski, 929 F.2d 981, 983

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

rand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 1 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (defendant's personal calendar not protected because voluntarily prepared); Barrett v. Acevedo , 169 F.3d 1155, 1168 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant's journal not protected because voluntarily written); United States v. Witylcowski , 929 F.2d 981,

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

Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 1 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (defendant's personal calendar not protected because voluntarily prepared); Barrett I Acevedo , 169 F.3d 1155, 1168 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant's journal not protected because voluntarily written); United States I Wirykowski , 929 F.2d 981, 98

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