Epstein Secrets

tered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 10 of 24 4 The United States Supreme Court has expressly encompassed the innocent citizen as

areas that could result in criminal prosecution. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36. Accordingly, any compelled te

ein to walk a thin line with regard to "surrender[ing] the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the 10 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 391 Entered on FLSD D

nd as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). 11. Therefore, Epstein is not required to produce any documents or responses to interrogatories. I

e others third-party privacy rights. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.C

mpelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the exis

in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing documents in response to a

e act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against

significantly narrower that other requests that the United States Supreme Court and other courts have upheld. See, e.g., Fisher

actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s a

ld support a criminal conviction, but even if "the responses would merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate."). The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where "the act of producing documents in response

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-K

designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amend

a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36; see also Fisher v. United State

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly aut

he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.1 Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions ... is to protect innocent men . .. who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous

.. Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves." 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957). The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000), that the right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself applies as well to the compelled production of docume

n he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.' Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions... is to protect innocent men... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circu

... Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves." 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957). The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000), that the right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself applies as well to the compelled production of document

d. In contrast to Fisher, a case in which investigators already knew that documents existed and exactly where they were located, the investigators in Hubbell lacked "any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out