Search

Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the ability of parties in a federal criminal case to discover material from one another and from nonparties prior to or during trial. The language of Rule 17(c) itself is broad and allows for any subpoenas to be issued so long as they are not “unreasonable or oppressive.” Yet, the Supreme Court, in two cases, Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States and United States v. Nixon, substantially narrowed the applicability of the Rule, such that— absent affirmative showings of admissibility, relevance, and specificity for all material sought—parties are not entitled to discovery. While this high bar for discovery does not create major issues for the prosecution, which has already conducted sweeping discovery during the grand jury process, the defense is left at the mercy of the Nixon standard and its requisite, near-insurmountable showings to obtain subpoenas. While some have critiqued the current system of federal criminal discovery, few have focused on the best way to reform that system, without overturning any Supreme Court precedent. And the literature that has proposed reforms to the criminal discovery system has concentrated on altering the text of Rule 17 itself. This Note instead advocates for a court-driven approach to reform and, in doing so, argues that this solution is preferable to Rule reform when one weighs speed and clarity. This Note proposes a novel approach to Rule 17(c) jurisprudence and the defense discovery system by providing historical context for Nixon and elucidating the due process and compulsory process concerns with this legal regime, ultimately recommending that courts use different standards of evaluation depending on the target of the subpoena—be it an opposing party, a nonparty, or the President of the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Search warrants, subpoenas, and other forms of compulsory legal process are essential for legal parties to gather evidence. Internet technology companies increasingly control wide-ranging forms of evidence, yet little is known about how these companies fulfill their compulsory legal obligations. This Article presents an original study of internet technology companies as evidence intermediaries: third-party organizations that control access to evidence routinely sought by legal parties. Drawing on in-depth qualitative interviews with companies' legal and compliance staff and with law enforcement agents, I show how company processes for responding to search warrants cannot be neatly categorized within the existing literature's dichotomy of cooperation or resistance. Rather, the responses consist of makeshift measures that companies have developed to manage predicaments arising from the imprecise or impracticable wording of warrants. These measures can affect the evidence that is ultimately available for use in legal proceedings. They can also untether the scope of searches--as they are carried out--from the procedures of the Fourth Amendment. This Article contends that, because judicial officers are likely ill-equipped to oversee problematic company practices, a variety of institutional interventions to supplement existing court oversight of search procedure should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author discusses Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes a federal court to enforce an arbitration subpoena and for which no Supreme Court decision addresses when a federal court can act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Opuntia Brava is the property of Universidad de Ciencias Pedagogicas de Las Tunas, Centro de Documentacion e Informacion Pedagogica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Today, the standard for subpoenas under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, espoused in United States v. Nixon, provides for limited, almost useless, pretrial subpoena power for criminal defendants. When subpoenaing a third party, a defendant must show (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity for documents that they have not yet gained access to. This narrow scope of Rule 17(c) has long engendered criticism from judges, scholars, and practitioners alike. Yet, Rule 17(c) has not been changed, either by judicial opinion or amendment. Following years of criticism, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules ("Advisory Committee") is currently considering whether and how pretrial subpoena power under Rule 17 should be expanded. This Note examines how the Advisory Committee should change Rule 17(c). In light of a recent change to government policy that recommends that prosecutors collect less information during pretrial investigations, this Note argues that Rule 17(c) should be expanded to allow parties to subpoena documents and other items that are material and relevant to preparing the prosecution or defense and that requested documents need not be admissible. Further, this Note recommends settling existing jurisdictional splits and amending Rule 17 to explicitly require parties to file a motion with the court for issuance of a subpoena but allow ex parte proceedings upon a showing of good cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the shift from formalistic will requirements to functionalism, aiming to encourage more wills. Topics discussed include loosening will formalities, attestation requirements, and the use of extrinsic evidence to ascertain the testator's intent, ultimately assessing whether these reforms lead to better outcomes compared to intestacy.

Copyright of Revista CIENCIA UNEMI is the property of Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This document discusses Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) and the potential regulatory actions that state attorneys general (AGs) can take to address their controversial practices. CPCs are criticized for their use of non-diagnostic ultrasounds and the promotion of abortion pill reversal. The document suggests that state AGs can regulate CPCs through medical licensing laws and provides a case study of the New York Attorney General's investigation into an unlicensed CPC. It also mentions legislative efforts to address misleading advertising by CPCs and emphasizes the importance of protecting citizens' health. [Extracted from the article]

This document explores the topic of virtual testimony in criminal proceedings and its implications for the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. It discusses the Supreme Court case Maryland v. Craig, which established that virtual testimony can be allowed under certain circumstances. The document argues that minor technical problems during virtual testimony generally do not violate the Confrontation Clause, as long as the witness's credibility can still be assessed and the defendant can effectively cross-examine them. However, severe technical difficulties that hinder cross-examination and prevent the jury from evaluating the witness's testimony would constitute a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The document provides a three-pronged analysis for courts to follow when addressing technical difficulties during virtual testimony. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the rise of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) in the United States and the efforts to regulate them. CPCs, which provide pregnancy counseling and services from a pro-life perspective, have faced criticism for using deceptive practices and providing misleading information about abortion and contraception. State Attorney Generals (AGs) have the authority to regulate CPCs and protect citizens from potential harm. The article suggests that AGs can use existing state statutes to address problematic CPC practices and provides case studies of past AG actions. It also discusses the use of Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) statutes and medical licensing laws as tools for regulation. Additionally, federal and state legislatures have introduced bills to regulate CPCs and combat anti-abortion disinformation. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the importance and challenges of corporate representative depositions in commercial litigation. It explains that Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a deposing party to call for a company to designate a witness to testify on specific topics, which streamlines the information gathering process. The article provides best practices for issuing notices, responding to them, and preparing and presenting witnesses. It also emphasizes the need for clear and specific notices to avoid burdening the corporation. The article discusses strategies for conducting or defending a corporate representative deposition, including covering all possible topics, choosing designees wisely, and properly preparing witnesses. [Extracted from the article]

The article examines the impact of federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations prosecutions on Black and Brown minors involved in or adjacent to street gangs, emphasizing their vulnerability within the criminal legal system. Topics include the disproportionate targeting of these minors, the potential harm they face as grand jury witnesses, and the need for enhanced protections for them within the legal process.

The article discusses the need to include Title IX provisions of the Education Amendments law mandating fair obligations to colleges and universities on how to properly handle sexual harassment allegations to ascertain the truth. The proposed provisions provide universities the power to subpoena and requires all non-party witnesses to undergo cross-examination. Also cited is the aim of Title IX to ban discrimination on the basis of health in U.S. schools.

The author discusses her role as adviser to the South Dakota House of Representative in the first impeachment proceedings involving attorney general Jason Ravnsborg. She talks about the passage of House Resolution 7001 establishing a select committee to investigate provisions of articles of impeachment, as well as issuance of subpoenas, notice sent to the legal counsel of Ravnsborg, and evidentiary hearings held and legal analysis conducted by the Select Committee.

This paper analyzes the text of Mamat Alkatiri's stand-up comedy in the Somasi program on the Close the Door Youtube channel. This paper uses critical discourse analysis from Norman Fairclough. Mamat delivered his disappointment with the government, especially in terms of: (1) The overlapping division of positions; (2) public officials who seem to be 'anti-criticism'; (3) A decision-making system that reaps the pros and cons. As explained by Fairclough, discourse practices and socio-cultural conditions influence the discourse that is built. Based on the results of the analysis, Mamat's discourse cannot be separated from discourse practices which include; the media organization that produces the performance, then the characteristics of Somasi's audience that are able to accept and negotiate his comedic performance. Then the socio-cultural conditions that influence Mamat's comedy text include; the presence of subpoena phenomena in Indonesia as a situational dimension, government institutions in Indonesia, especially in bureaucratic management and decision-making systems, situational dimensions that occur in Indonesia such as the presence of subpoena phenomena which indirectly put pressure (repression) on freedom of expression. Mamat's discourse is also influenced by Mamat's political culture spirit, this spirit is the same as cyberspace's opportunity to achieve a democratic system that is coveted by cyberspace audiences. Mamat's criticism implies messages for all of us to reflect again, has the current era of government provided democratic public space.

The article argues that continued scholarly focus on constitutional rights to privacy in context of abortion might be misplaced in short term. It mentions context of abortion, privacy may be defined as an individual's interest in avoiding an unwanted governmental intrusion, including a state's interference with an individual's decision to terminate a pregnancy. It also mentions disclosures of reproductive health information by healthcare providers in context of court orders, party subpoenas.

Government review of privileged material seized during law-office searches or following the subpoena of an attorney to a grand jury raises genuine concerns that implicate attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, and ethical mandates of confidentiality. Currently, the review process may be through a Department of Justice taint or filter team ("taint team"), a court-appointed special master, or a hybrid of these two approaches. When applied to highprofile cases such as Michael Avenatti, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Cohen, one sees an inconsistent approach that is largely controlled by the government. Problems arise not only from this lack of uniformity, but also from certain inherent deficiencies in using a taint team to review privileged material. This Article offers a reconfiguration of the government's review process, starting with the government's initial decision to opt for a law-office search as opposed to grand jury subpoenas duces tecum. This Article calls for an expansion of ethical mandates to increase the neutrality of this review process, as well as instituting procedures to ensure an independent review of privileged documents that does not compromise a defendant's rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Although fortifying the judicial role in reviewing privileged materials comes with certain costs, the aggregate benefits provide a more balanced judicial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court coupled with restrictive domestic arbitration legislation has created gaps in the enforcement of international arbitral subpoenas in the United States. These enforcement gaps restrict access to evidence by international arbitral tribunals seated in the United States and block such access entirely for foreign-seated international arbitral tribunals. These gaps also make the United States an outlier among other major international arbitration jurisdictions and conflicts with international arbitral practice. However, the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Day v Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe is a first step toward filling these enforcement gaps. This article sets out the legislative framework governing the enforcement of international arbitral subpoenas in the United States, introduces the existing gaps in such enforcement, demonstrates how these gaps fly in the face of international arbitral practice and explains how the Ninth Circuit has now filled at least some of them. If followed by other federal courts, Day v Orrick may pave the way for the enforcement of subpoenas issued by international arbitral tribunals seated both within and outside the United States, and bring the United States back in line with international arbitral practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision in Trump v. Mazars establishing four factors for determining the validity of congressional subpoenas for a sitting president’s personal papers. In an unanticipated move, Chief Justice John Roberts added that recipients of congressional subpoenas have “long been understood” to retain not only constitutional privileges, but common law privileges developed by judges, including the attorney-client privilege. This was particularly surprising since Trump was not relying on the attorney-client privilege and the Court had never treated this common law privilege as overriding Congress’s Article I power to set its own procedures for conducting investigations. This article examines the merits of this claim from three possible sources of authority: separation of powers principles, congressional oversight precedents, and judicial rulings. It concludes that since the attorney-client privilege is rooted in common law, committees are not required to recognize it, but may do so if they choose. It also finds that although recipients of congressional subpoenas may assert applicable constitutional privileges to withhold certain subsets of attorney-client communications, these privileges may be limited. Finally, rather than assuming that the Chief Justice’s line was erroneous dictum or a sweeping new pronouncement with no explanation, this article offers an alternative reading that gives him the benefit of the doubt and aligns with current practice: recipients of congressional subpoenas retain their right to assert the privilege in separate proceedings, and complying with compulsory demands from Congress does not constitute a general waiver in other fora. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aimed to evaluate the implementation, and problems encountered in the implementation of Philippine National Police Electronic – Project Systems in Lipa City Batangas. The descriptive research design was used employing a self-made survey questionnaire distributed purposively to 120 internal stakeholders as the respondents of the study. The basic statistical tools were used to interpret and analysed the data gathered. The study revealed that e-Subpoena, e-Gallery, e-Warrant System, and e-Blotter Report are implemented in Lipa City, Batangas within the indicators of an effective implementation plan. However, the study also revealed that the stakeholders encountered serious problems in the implementation of PNP’s e-Project Systems within the bounds of the criteria used. This study asserts that although the PNP’s e-Project Systems in Lipa City Batangas are implemented, the regular conduct of capability building is necessary for the monitoring, supervision and management of the project.

The aim of this study - occasioned by the Romanian Constitutional (RCC) Decision. No. 404 of September 21, 2022, we bring back into discussion the obligation of the legislative forum not to ignore the principle of the security of legal relations in the component related to the clarity, accessibility, and predictability of the law. The legislative proposal for the amendment and completion of Government Ordinance (GO) no. 2/2001 on the legal regime of contraventions (PLx 598/2021) - based on the standardization of the contravention procedure and the introduction of the written procedure, in the council chamber, with the removal of the subpoena of the parties, in the case of specific complaints, in order to make justice more efficient. The opinions of the Legislative Council and the Superior Council of the Magistracy are observed and analyzed - through the lens of its considerations and effects, RCC Decision no. 404/2022 by which the notification of unconstitutionality formulated by the People's Advocate was admitted. It is argued that the fundamental mission of justice as an act of judicial justice and as a public service cannot be subordinated to a purely administrative approach, which abandons the requirements of the rule of law and mutilates the right to a fair trial. Considering the many changes and additions to GO no. 2/2002, respectively attempts to change invalidated by the administrative litigation court, we conclude with the observation that legislation for the sake of legislation is a practice that must be abandoned, the need to adopt a Contraventional Code being brought back into discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on brief history of the role of crime victims and their rights in criminal justice in the U.S. It mentions federal cases involving government assertions of rights and interests in the context of a subpoena duces tecum for a crime victim's records. It also mentions proposing that to close the gap between mere rights ownership and true victim agency requires victim counsel.