“the facts and circumstance of the particular case, including . . . the volume of materials . . . the relative importance to the case of the alleged privileged information, and the likelihood that the evidence produced through in camera review, together with other evidence then before the court, will establish that the crime-fraud exception does apply.” United States v. Zolin, supra, 572; see also In re John Doe, Inc., supra, 13 F.3d 636 (determining that in camera procedure comports with due process). As to the type of evidence permitted to meet this threshold showing, the party seeking to invoke the exception may offer “any relevant evidence, lawfully obtained, that has not been adjudicated to be privileged.” United States v. Zolin, supra, 575; In re John Doe, Inc., supra, 636 (<HOLDING>). Ill In conclusion, the Appellate Court
recognizing that the determination is an equitable one holding that the validity of a collateral waiver is a threshold issue recognizing that zolin established that only nonprivileged material may be used to make the threshold determination that triggers in camera review holding that the appropriate inquiry under aedpa is not whether a federal court believes a state courts determination  was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonablea substantially higher threshold holding that courts may decline to make a constitutional determination at the first stage of the qualified immunity inquiry where that determination would be based on an interpretation of uncertain state law