Epstein Secrets

ents , are separate offenses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because they were violations of the laws of two separate sovereigns - specifically the State of Mississippi and the United States. Therefore, because the Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, Avants's statements during the 1967 interview, when he was repre

of the legal requirements for application of the privilege, his claim will be rejected") (citations omitted); Dorf & Stanton Communications, Inc. v. Molson Breweries , 100 F.3d 919 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a party who fails to submit a privilege log is deemed to have waived the underlying privilege claim). Epstein's fa

ents , are separate offenses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because they were violations of the laws of two separate sovereigns - specifically the State of Mississippi and the United States. Therefore, because the Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, Avants's statements during the 1967 interview, when he was repre

t of the legal requirements for application of the privilege, his claim will be rejected") (citations omitted); Dorf & Stanton Communications, Inc.. Molson Breweries , 100 F.3d 919 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a party who fails to submit a privilege log is deemed to have waived the underlying privilege claim). Epstein's fa

lements, are separate offenses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because they were violations of the laws of two separate sovereigns—specifically the State of Mississippi and the United States. Therefore, because the Sixth Amendment is offense- specific, Avants's statements during the 1967 interview, when he was repres

f the legal requirements for application of the privilege, his claim will be rejected") (citations omitted); Dorf & Stanton Communications, Inc. v. Molson Breweries, 100 F.3d 919 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a party who fails to submit a privilege log is deemed to have waived the underlying privilege claim). Epstein's fai