Ad
related to: sample subpoena for grand jury case lookuppdffiller.com has been visited by 1M+ users in the past month
A Must Have in your Arsenal - cmscritic
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
English: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not immunize a corporation owned by a foreign country even if the subpoena violates that country's laws.
Unlike a petit jury, which resolves a particular civil or criminal case, a grand jury (typically having twelve to twenty-three members) serves as a group for a sustained period of time in all or many of the cases that come up in the jurisdiction, generally under the supervision of a federal U.S. attorney, a county district attorney, or a state ...
The House clerk publicly informed members of the request for records on ... House of Representatives has been served with a grand jury subpoena for documents issued by the U.S. Department of ...
DOJ had recently issued a grand jury subpoena to the House sergeant at arms for documents, a development that was made public on the House floor on Monday. But the focus of the federal probe was ...
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-3071, 912 F.3d 623 (2019), was a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case involving an appeal by company owned by a foreign government that was ordered by a federal judge to pay a $50,000 fine per day until it complies with a grand jury's subpoena.
Prosecutors in Arizona have issued several grand jury subpoenas in recent weeks to people connected to efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election in that ...
In re Boucher (case citation: No. 2:06-mJ-91, 2009 WL 424718), is a federal criminal case in Vermont, which was the first to directly address the question of whether investigators can compel a suspect to reveal their encryption passphrase or password, despite the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.