Epstein Secrets

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

o demonstrate prior knowledge of requested subpoenaed documents, the act of producing those documents is testimonial. Two 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 ( Cir. 2006

e taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the papers." Id. 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 pri

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

f 22 documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

7. Corte 4w4$9(2) The state courts are the final arbiters of the meaning and appropriate application of state statutes, subject only to review by the United States Supreme Court if such construction or application is appropriately challenged on constitutional grounds. & Coons itio508(7) Interference with the process of th

rict Court for the Western District of Washington, Marsha J. Pechman, J., to drug conspiracy. Defendants appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Fisher, Circuit Judge, held that: (I) it lacked jurisdiction to review sentence imposed within range stipulated to in defendant's plea agreement: (2) d