Epstein Secrets

the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions or propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation . ." Blair v. United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). A grand jury may "inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it h

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

ry subpoena is necessary and relevant." In re Impounded , 241 F.3d 308, 314 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting R. Enter , supra , 498 U.S. at 298-99). See also Blair I United States , 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (a grand jury witness cannot refuse to respond to a subpoena on the grounds that the information sought

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions or propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation . ." Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). A grand jury may "inquire into all information that might possibly bear on its investigation until it ha

rom the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence, t