Epstein Secrets

al or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turlev 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

ny difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id, at 490; and In re Keller Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

rmation only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00222536 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 15 Page

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citin Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege

PaKO PS 4 24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, .gr Hoffman, at 486. In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to apprehend danger fro

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

rmation only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00067394 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 15 Page