Epstein Secrets

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

very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecut

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

the government has failed to show with reasonable particularity that it knew of the existence and location of most of the subpoenaed documents ... Ponds' act of production was sufficiently testimonial to implicate his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: Id

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

o Supreme Court precedents, Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, as well as Hubbell's progeny, United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), inform the determination of whether a production of documents in response to a subpoena has a testimonial character.