Epstein Secrets

in too much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise `the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.'" R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 299 (quoting United States v. Johnson , 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). "The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand jury investi

by the grand jury is not relevant to its investigation). The burden of showing unreasonableness rests with the person seeking to avoid compliance. R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 301. The Supreme Court has noted the grand jury's broad powers to issue subpoenas: "the grand jury's authority to subpoena witnesses

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

in too much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise `the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.'" R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 299 (quoting United States I Johnson , 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). "The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand July investig

by the grand jury is not relevant to its investigation). The burden of showing unreasonableness rests with the person seeking to avoid compliance. R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 301. The Supreme Court has noted the grand jury's broad powers to issue subpoenas: "the grand jury's authority to subpoena witnesses

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

by the grand jury is not relevant to its investigation). The burden of showing unreasonableness rests with the person seeking to avoid compliance. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 301. The Supreme Court has noted the grand jury's broad powers to issue subpoenas: "the grand -37- EFTA00179136 jury's authority to

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