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

witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985) (c

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

itness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (ci

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

ut to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11 th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U

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

incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), cit

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

ions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings." See Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in