Epstein Secrets

s who used them.15 See, e.g., United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster, 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or information are classified as "personal papers" rather than

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

used them. F15 See, e.g., United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster , 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or information are classified as "personal papers" rather tha

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

ho used them. F15 See, e.g., United States' Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster , 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or information are classified as "personal papers" rather tha

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden