Epstein Secrets

if there is a reasonable possibility that the materials sought by the government will produce information relevant to the grand jury investigation. R. Enter., 498 U.S. at 300. Despite these broad powers, Epstein objects to the subpoenas that specifically call for and describe three computers, arguing th

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

ial burden on the government to prove a grand jury subpoena is necessary and relevant." In re Impounded , 241 F.3d 308, 314 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting R. Enter , supra , 498 U.S. at 298-99). See also Blair v. United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (a grand jury witness cannot refuse to respond to a subpoe

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

ial burden on the government to prove a grand jury subpoena is necessary and relevant." In re Impounded , 241 F.3d 308, 314 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting R. Enter , supra , 498 U.S. at 298-99). See also Blair I United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (a grand jury witness cannot refuse to respond to a subpoen

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