Epstein Secrets

tion. B. The Private Interests at Stake Are Profoundly Important. Plea negotiations are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, and maintaining their confidentiality advances significant private as well as public interests. There is an "imperative need" that

ure, they will necessarily refrain from making admissions and concessions, either of fact or law, which could later harm their clients. Thus, as in Jaffee, the "evidence" which would be available for later discovery would likely never come into being. Fourth, there is a strong consensus in the states

gress rejected in enacting Rule 501, only one of which appears on this Court's summary in Adkins of the most important considerations identified in Jaffee - over the most important consideration, the strong public and private interests at stake. The Goodyear Tire analysis is far more consonant with th

dentiality on which defense counsel have reasonably relied for many decades in negotiating with government attorneys on behalf of their clients. In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court focused on four primary considerations governing the recognition of privileges under Rule 501: the needs of t

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 10 of 23 A. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Rule 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognition of testimonial privileg

nship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the United States vio

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea negotiat

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

oof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. D. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognitio

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

oof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. D. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognitio

ionship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the United States viola

ege is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15 (1996}—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea negotiatio

rican Airlines had made "a • compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

n FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 10 of 24 A. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Rule 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognition of testimonial privileg

nship. unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 M. at 10. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the United States violat

lege is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary bit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 I. 10-15 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea negotiations