SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (13350)4/10/1998 8:42:00 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) of 20981
 
In the case of Mr. Clinton in particular and in criminal investigations of this nature in general, when developing evidence I understand that a thorough prosecutor will look under every rock. Exposing the underside of rocks tends to start things skittering. The way I understand the subpoena mechanism, the prosecutor does not need permission to issue one. If one feels aggrieved by the subpoena one is entitled (at least in the Federal civil courts) to ask the Court to review the matter and quash the subpoena. For instance, one is entitled to reasonable notice. So for instance, if I issued you a subpoena today to appear tomorrow, absent some compelling exigent circumstances (such as fleeing the country to avoid testifying at all) , I doubt I could enforce it. I suspect, although I don't know for sure since I don't represent anyone in criminal proceedings, that the same remedy (motion to quash) applies in criminal proceeding. If these "shotgun" subpoenas really did violate any law or portion of the Constitution, I imagine the ACLU and/or some other protector of the great unwashed masses would be leaping forward to stop the abuses of the evil IC. How exactly do you feel a "shotgun" subpoena violates the Constitution? JLA
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext