Epstein Secrets

he government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition

13 Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19,116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47,100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whcn

ersus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Interven

F.2d at 1004. Although Congress empowered the federal courts through Rule 501 to "continue the evolutionary development of testimonial privileges," Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 910 (1980), we disfavor newly minted privileges, which "contravene the fundamental principle that the public has

NITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors/Appellants ON APPEAL FROM A

, 682 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2004) 43 State v. Boggs, 741 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 2007) 42 State v. Trujillo, 93 N.M. 724, 605 P.2d 232 (N.M.1980) 43 Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) 29, 45 United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 887(2008) 16 United States v. Castan

he government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition

Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidenc,e."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19, 116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whe

ORDER grantin8/2i Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to supplemental briefing in support o£54, MOTION to Intervene of ii ?o, [11 ,Black,Mar i fisiaLi ejkowitz. Responsesdueby1011 011 0/2 . Signed by Judge on 9/28/2011. (ir) (Entered: 09282011) 09/29/2011 .121 Unopposed MOTION for

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epst

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

INTRODUCTION Appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby requ

l courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The Supreme Court has recognized that "Rules 410 and 11(e)(6) `creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant . . . ."'

' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epst

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

was excused from appearing before the grand jury and that Mr. Riley did not flout the subpoena by failing to appear. AUSA agreed with Attorney Mr. Black that Mr. Riley would not have to appear and produce the disputed items if a motion to quash all aspects of the subpoenas was filed. Neither party's

luding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Because [the attorney