Epstein Secrets

325, 337 (1985). Likewise, whether a subpoena is oppressive depends on the context. In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury, 854 F. Supp. 1392, 1401 (S.D. Ind. 1993). The context here is the wholesale removal of these computers just days before a court authorized a warrant for their seizure. The context of

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

. 325, 337 (1985). Likewise, whether a subpoena is oppressive depends on the context. In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury , 854E Supp. 1392, 1401 (S.D. Ind. 1993). The context here is the wholesale removal of these computers just days before a court authorized a warrant for their seizure. The context of

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

. 325, 337 (1985). Likewise, whether a subpoena is oppressive depends on the context. In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury , 854E Supp. 1392, 1401 (S.D. Ind. 1993). The context here is the wholesale removal of these computers just days before a court authorized a warrant for their seizure. The context of

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