Epstein Secrets

he "tinned Kingdom-United Stater Agreement Concerning Obtaining Evidence From Cayman Islands With Regard to Narcotics Activities." The gravamen of Harvey's argu- ment is that the United States may obtain evi. had granted Harvey both transactional im- munity and use immunity for any informa- tion he had

89) 7201,' and one count of filing a false income tax return in April of 1981, a viola- tion of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).1 The govern- ment alleges that Harvey kept millions of dollars derived from his lucrative drug dealings in a bank account in the Cayman Islands. In his individual income tax re- turn f

s that apply to pro- tect a defendant at the trial stage also apply at the appellate level, provided the appeal is a matter of right. FN2. Justice Rehnquist, writing in dissent, vehemently objected to this characterization as "inconsistent with the general view of state app late review expressed ...

rney, and Assistant U.S. Attorney." I said, "I would stake my life on their honor and veracity." Mr. Sands asked Mr. Kimbrough: Q. In return for Harvey's furnishing information, what was he to receive? A. I was to dismiss the Indictment against him. Q. Do you know whether or not any— A. And I would

ld not satisfy heavy burden of proving defendant under- stood government reserved right to seek property forfeiture): United States v. (Mi• chat!) Harvey, 791 F.2d at 301 (imprecision in terms of written agreement construed against the government). 11 In this case, Harvey was not granted formal st

insu- lar and discrete' minorities at every turn in the road." Sugarman v. nougat:, 113 U.S. 634, 657, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 2865, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973) (Rehnquist, .1., dissent- ing). We therefore decline to equate one's choice of language with one's race or na- tional origin, classification on the basis of w

and the court found that to allow the privilege to protect against disclosure of that information" would have been unfair to the opposing party. 3 Weinstein, supra § 503.41[1]See also Sedco, 683 F.2d at 1206 (noting that courts have found waiver by implication when a client (i) testifies concerning po

preclusion sanction did not deprive defend- ant of rights to compulsory process and cross-examination. Page 1 Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Rehnquist joined in parts of the court's opinion. Opinion following reversal, 522 F.2d 1274. Mr. Justice White filed an opinion con- curring in the judgmen