Search for: "In RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM v. State"
Results 21 - 37
of 37
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Prosecutors’ Foregone Conclusion Argument Against Fifth Amendment Opposition to Decrypting Computers
23 Mar 2017, 8:34 pm
” In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Mar. 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, n. 19 (11th Cir. 2012). [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 5:52 am
State v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 12:10 pm
Yesterday, however, Nunes stated that the closed hearing had been canceled as well. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 5:02 am
McPherson, et al., The Common Interest Rule, supra (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910 (U.S. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
The U.S. itself takes exactly the same position with respect to grand jury subpoenas compelling production of records stored abroad, and (as discussed below) with respect to the SCA provisions compelling production of email data stored abroad. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:25 pm
See See v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 7:00 am
Complaint in Superior Court of California (March 20, 2018) Common Cause FEC Complaint re: Michael Cohen et al. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 11:00 am
If we indulge the assumption that the investigation is tied to some grand jury inquiry (likely in most, though not all scenarios) then resistance to a valid subpoena is quite hard. [read post]
26 May 2010, 4:56 am
See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 93 (`production may not be refused [i]f the government can demonstrate with reasonable particularity that it knows of the existence and location of subpoenaed documents’). . . . [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 12:06 pm
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1341 at 1345. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 12:06 pm
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1341 at 1345. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 4:19 am
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated May 9, 1990, 741 F. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 12:52 pm
v. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 8:22 am
But when the Jihadis walked right through “law enforcement” and blew up downtown that bright fall day, they blew up much of what the remained debatable in the debate about privacy and technology — or, at least, so it seemed, until a year ago, when the 11th Circuit issued an important ruling in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, summarized here by Joel Hruska: [A] John Doe . . . was compelled… [read post]
14 Apr 2007, 3:05 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:07 pm
Cloud, where they complete intake and are eventually transported to their assigned facility in the State. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:45 am
In McNally v. [read post]
