Epstein Secrets

uses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses covered by the privilege. See Roe v. Slotnick, 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay v. C.I.R., 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on

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

ses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses covered by the privilege. See Roe v. Slotnick , 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay v. C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on

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

uses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses covered by the privilege. See Roe I Slotnick , 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay I C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on t

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