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 ha

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

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

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

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

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden