Epstein Secrets

TA00179106 Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and 'real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he declares that in so d

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

of the Fifth Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and `real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States , 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). EFTA00211779 Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he decla

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

of the Fifth Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and `real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti I United States , 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). EFTA00222995 Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he declar

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