Epstein Secrets

y errors in the pretrial process. b&. Lafler I. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri I. Frye,

federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situat

y errors in the pretrial process. b&. Lafler I. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri I. Frye,

federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situat

n re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed during the litigation on intervention. We only add that, in Lafler' Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri.. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), the United States Supreme Court flatly rejected the arguments by Jane Doe 1 and

ivilege," and to provide the court "with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis, and leave the door open to change." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47. Whatever the circumstances may be in other cases in the future, the facts of this case, when "interpreted in the light of reason an

871 So.2d 729 (Miss. 2004) 43 *Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) passim Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) 27 *Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) 8, 12 Long v. Raymond Corp., 245 Fed. Appx. 912 (11th Cir. 2007) 6 Lake Utopia Paper Ltd. v. Connelly Containers, Inc

r was to provide the courts with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis . . . and to leave the door open to change." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court explored the considerations which g