Epstein Secrets

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee' Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pre

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee' Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pre

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 131

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to p

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pr

findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown I. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 13

hip, unlike the confiden- tial relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, 116 S.Ct. at 1928. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether t

See supra p. 33. FN 10. See supra n. 2. FN I 1. Defendant's reliance on United States v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1986), is misplaced. In Brown, the Eighth Circuit determined that the defend- ant had breached a cooperation agree- ment, thus permitting the government to prosecute him for the

the Parent-Child Center, Inc. and Dr. Serge Thys are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00182846 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 8 a k. v

umption In favor of public access to the courts. Brown I. Advantage Engineer- The doctrine of ancillary

rican Airlines had made "a • compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

atutory aggravating factors ... must now be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury in capital cases"); see also Bourgeois, 423 F.3d at 507; Brown, 441 F.3d at 1367 (collecting cases). Here, the district court noted that the government "implicitly conceded" that the Fifth Amendment requires

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin