Epstein Secrets

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209633 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

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

es against Epstein which had been EFTA00177793 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 189 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 2 of 14 investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida and (2) refrain from instituting criminal charges against certain alleged co-conspirators o

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

sed of the scope of the federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), is broader both in terms of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified' Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in

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