Epstein Secrets

ial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe v. United States , 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis v. United States , 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the Production of the Com

to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law. Id. at 172-73 (quoting McNeil, 501 U.S. at 181). Two Courts of Appeals have addressed Cobb in the context of persons charged by state prosecutors who are later interrogated by federal agents. In those cases, the courts

cial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe I United States , 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis I United States , 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the Production of the Comp

to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law. Id. at 172-73 (quoting McNeil, 501 U.S. at 181). Two Courts of Appeals have addressed Cobb in the context of persons charged by state prosecutors who are later interrogated by federal agents. In those cases, the courts

cial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). -15- EFTA00179114 B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the

to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law. Id. at 172-73 (quoting McNeil, 501 U.S. at 181). Two Courts of Appeals have addressed Cobb in the context of persons charged by state "In Cobb, the Court went on to decide that Texas police officers did not violate Cobb