Epstein Secrets

ers and memos in which Mr. Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein should not be federally prosecuted. 8 EFTA00177817 States v. Adelman, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006), also involved statements made by the defendant to federal prosecutors; the defendant's statements were made in meetin

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

ve no room to doubt that the parties were engaged in serious negotiations to resolve the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. United States v. Adelman, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006), also involved statements made by the defendant to federal prosecutors; the defendant's statements were made in meeti

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

ral court and "comparable state procedures." Fed. R. ' The other two cases relied on by the district court are equally inapposite. United States v. Adelman, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006), involved statements made by the defendant to federal prosecutors during meetings at which she was told, according to

ed by reference to Fed. R. Evid. 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The Supreme Court has recognized that

ve no room to doubt that the parties were engaged in serious negotiations to resolve the federal criminal investigation of Epstein. United States v. Adelman, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006), also involved statements made by the defendant to federal prosecutors; the defendant's statements were made in meeti

efers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is