Epstein Secrets

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

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 50!, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that t

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp." United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations ar

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 50!, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that t

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp." United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations ar

MPLIANCE 60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 61 iii EFTA00209662 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 7 of 75 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1131 (2008) 6, 30, 33, 45 Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Transportation, 45

orp. v. United States, 509 U.S. 905 (1993) 22 Jasper v. State, 871 So.2d 729 (Miss. 2004) 43 *Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) passim Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) 27 *Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) 8, 12 Long v. Raymond Corp., 245 Fed. Appx. 912 (11th Cir.

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

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations

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

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). B. The Common Law Privilege Under Rule 501. The district court rejected intervenors' contention that

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

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations