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 ...
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department: Abbreviation: SBCSD: Motto: we help ourselves: Agency overview; Formed: 1853; 172 years ago () Employees: 3,700: Annual budget: $693 million [1] Jurisdictional structure; Operations jurisdiction: San Bernardino County, California, United States: Map of San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department's ...
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 ...
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.
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 ".
In addition, grand jury witnesses may be prosecuted for perjury or making false statements in their testimony. In Kastigar v. United States , 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the US Supreme Court confronted the issue of the type of immunity, use or transactional, constitutionally required to compel testimony.
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.