Epstein Secrets

tah: Utah R. Evid. 410; Vermont: Vt. R. Evid. 410; Virginia: Va. S.Ct. Rule 3A:8; Washington: Wa. R. Evid. 410; West Virginia: W. Va. R. Evid. 410; Wisconsin: Wisc. Stat. Ann. §904.10; Wyoming: W.R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6). 42 EFTA00209712 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 57 of 75 492, 504 (Iow

1987) 53 In re MTSG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 32, 33 In re RDM Sports Group, Inc., 277 B.R. 415 (N.D. Ga. 2002) 34, 40 In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603 (D.C.Cir. 2013) 54 In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. XYZ Corp. v. United States,

one possible interpretation involves a niestigmac then due process requires that the individual must be afforded a chance to defend himself, citing Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 91 S.Ct. 507, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971). Applicants' Reply Mem. at 8. This argument is without merit. Although Constant

., the name of a person of interest) is not prohibited by Rule 6(e) as long as it does not elucidate the inner workings of the grand jury. See In re Sealed Case, 192 F.3d at 1002 (discussed infra at 8-9). The Court thus turns its attention to the relevant provisions of the Qantas information, the plea agreem

th prosecution by one sovereign do not carry over to prosecution by another sovereign. In Cobb , the Supreme Court clarified its holding in McNeil. Wisconsin , 501 U.S. 171 (1991) that the "Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense specific. It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions." Id. a

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00222997 of the most signi