Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On August 15, 2006, as part of United States v. Fainaru-Wada, 06-90225, [5] U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ordered Fainaru-Wada and Williams to comply with their subpoenas and testify, saying that, if they do not, they would be held in contempt and incarcerated until such time as they decide to talk or if the grand jury expires and has to be thrown out.
18 U.S.C. § 3144, commonly referred to as the "material witness statute," provides as follows: If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in ...
One quirk of California law is that when a party petitions the appellate courts for a writ of mandate (California's version of mandamus), the case name becomes [petitioner name] v. Superior Court (that is, the superior court is the respondent on appeal), and the real opponent is then listed below those names as the " real party in interest ".
A Justice Department subpoena confirms a federal grand jury investigation involving Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and donations made by the owners of Cal Waste Solutions.
San Bernardino County was partitioned from Los Angeles County in 1853. [3] San Bernardino was named the county seat, and the first county judge was Daniel M. Thomas, elected in January 1853. [4]: 418 [5]: 119 County affairs were conducted in the old Mormon Council-House, which was at the corner of Third and Grafton streets. [4]: 419
A grand jury's constitutional role is to prevent prosecutorial misconduct, verifying that the presented information (accusation) is sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution. To achieve this, a grand jury is given investigative powers such as being able to issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to testify without a lawyer present. [6]
The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web. AOL.
United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the three prong test for the issuance of a subpoena in United States v. Nixon does not apply to subpoenas issued by a grand jury. The Court concluded by stating that when a grand jury subpoena is challenged on ...