Epstein Secrets

t have been argued that the constitutional rights that normally would attend preconviction proceedings do not ar mpany the appellate process. See Ross Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. Page 16 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). Howevi the recent Supreme Court case of Evius Lum, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct.

alto Shapiro United States, 335 U.S. 1, 19, 68 S.Ct. 6, 1385, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948) (following rule of construction of Mike). More recently, in Kastigar, the Court up- held the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 6002 on the ground that use immunity "is coextensive with the scope of the privi- lege again

certain charges pending in Alabama. Be cause it disputed the very existence of a grant of immunity, the government object- ed to the holding of a Kastigar hearing as unwarranted. Faced with this disputed claim of an un- written grant of immunity, the magistrate did not hold a traditional Kastigar hea

d three of his assistants, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross (nee Mucinska), and Nadia Marcinkova. The target

ividuals. They are, however, similarly situated, so I have joined both requests for immunity in this memorandum. -1- EFTA00190247 proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before the grand jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. Both witnesses are represented by counsel. Miller is an openly hostile

ct Court for the Dis- trict of South Carolina, G. Ross Anderson, Jr., J., certified class, and lender a

itness' invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that the scope of the immu- nity granted must be as broad as the privi- lege. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1859. Due to the cumbersome requirements of obtaining properly authorized statutory im- munity, U.S. Attorneys often

rong case ag three rsonal assistants — Adriana Ross, a/k/a " and The case was presented for federal

in employees — Janusz Banasiak Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, r. anasi was satisfied with a standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi