Epstein Secrets

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E