Arshal v. U.S.

205 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Hooks

    848 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 102 times
    Finding no intimidation when witnesses acted on their own attorney's advice not to testify

    The prosecutor need only show that the witness has been indicted or present to the court in camera an ex parte affidavit setting forth the circumstances that support the prosecutor's suspicion of the witness's criminal activity.United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 778 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). Nevertheless, the prosecutor's power to seek or to refuse to seek immunity is limited by the constitutional right to due process of the law.

  2. Donovan v. Square D Co.

    709 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 18 times
    In Donovan v. Square D Co., 709 F.2d 335, 338-39 (5th Cir. 1983), we stated that "the government alone possesses the right to bring suit under Section 11(c).

    See, e.g., United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 1020, 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940); Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686, 688-89 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 911, 84 S.Ct. 666, 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964). See also Reeves v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 616 F.2d 1342, 1350 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 857, 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). Similarly, state limitations periods will not be borrowed if their application would "frustrate or interfere with the implementation of national policies."

  3. United States v. Chagra

    669 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 114 times
    Affirming admissibility of evidence of appellant's purchase of expensive private real estate in prosecution under continuing criminal enterprise statute

    If the government's prosecutorial interest outweighs a defendant's interest in presenting such evidence, as in Thevis, then the government's interest also outweighs any abstract concern with symmetry.See United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 774-75 (2d Cir. 1980) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856 (1981); Note, Defense Witness Immunity and the Right to a Fair Trial, 129 U.Pa.L.Rev. 377, 402 (1980). Appellant has not, and could not, argue that defense witness immunity is one of those "'fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions,'" United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2049, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977), and thus qualifies as a right guaranteed to a defendant under that theory.

  4. J.P. Stevens Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    668 F.2d 767 (4th Cir. 1982)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The Board has a duty to alter its policies in response to new circumstances or past experiences, but when it deviates from prior precedents it must provide a reasoned explanation for the change. J. P. Stevens Co. v. NLRB, 623 F.2d 322 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). This provides assurance that the prior standard is being changed, not ignored, and that the Board is faithful, and not indifferent, to the rule of law.

  5. United States v. Heldt

    668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1981)   Cited 232 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the search itself must be conducted in a reasonable manner, appropriately limited to the scope and intensity called for by the warrant," requiring an officer to execute a search "strictly within the bounds set by the warrant"

    The recognized rule is that the statute does not obligate the government to grant "use" immunity to defendants' witnesses and the power to apply to the court for use immunity is confined to the government. Grochulski v. Henderson, 637 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927, 101 S.Ct. 1383, 67 L.Ed.2d 358 (1981); United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981); United States v. Lenz, 616 F.2d 960, 962-63 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 3028, 65 L.Ed.2d 1124 (1980); United States v. Klauber, 611 F.2d 512 (4th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 908, 100 S.Ct. 1835, 64 L.Ed.2d 261 (1980); United States v. Bacheler, 611 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Herman, 589 F.2d 1191 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 2014, 60 L.Ed.2d 386 (1979); United States v. Graham, 548 F.2d 1302, 1314 (8th Cir. 1977); In re Kilgo, 484 F.2d 1215, 1222 (4th Cir. 1973). Generally, a trial court has no authority, in the absence of a request by the government, to provide use immunity for a defense witness.

  6. Harvill v. Westward Communications LLC

    6:02cv511 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's failure to assert facts regarding constructive discharge precluded her from bringing the claim in federal court

    The Plaintiff must prove "with definite and certain evidence" that she was not properly compensated for work performed. Reeves v. Intl. Tel and Tel. Corp., 616 F.2d 1342, 1351 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 (1981). The Plaintiff asserts that she was denied overtime pay over the entire course of her Westward employment, but has not calculated how much she is allegedly owed.

  7. Carter v. U.S.

    684 A.2d 331 (D.C. 1996)   Cited 48 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Adopting this quotation from Harris as a summary of "basic legal principles"

    When there is a conflict between the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused and the Fifth Amendment privilege of the witness, the right to compel testimony must yield to the witness' privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.g., United States v. Khan, 728 F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating that "an accused's right to compulsory process must give way to the witness' Fifth Amendment privilege not to give testimony that would tend to incriminate him"); United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 774 (2d Cir. 1980) (stating that "the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause gives the defendant the right to bring his witness to court and have the witness's non-privileged testimony heard, but does not carry with it the additional right to displace a proper claim of privilege, including the privilege against self-incrimination"), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981); United States v. Trejo-Zambrano, 582 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.) (stating that "[t]he Sixth Amendment right of an accused to compulsory process to secure the attendance of a witness does not include the right to compel the witness to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege"), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1005, 99 S.Ct. 618, 58 L.Ed.2d 682 (1978); State v. Simms, 170 Conn. 206, 365 A.2d 821, 823 (stating same), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954, 96 S.Ct. 1732, 48 L.Ed.2d 199 (1976); State v. Ramsey, 99 Idaho 1, 576 P.2d 572, 573-74 (1978) (stating same). In other words, if the trial judge concludes the proposed testimony would be incriminating and thereby poses the risk of possible future prosecution of the witness, this ends that inquiry and a claim of the privilege should be sustained.

  8. State v. Sanabria

    192 Conn. 671 (Conn. 1984)   Cited 43 times
    In Sanabria, the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes ยง 52-235, reserved questions to this court regarding the determination of the effective date of article seventeen of the amendments.

    All persons charged with a crime punishable on conviction by death or life imprisonment had a constitutional right to a grand jury determination that there was probable cause to believe the charge before being required to stand trial. See State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 799 (1981); State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264, 268 A.2d 667 (1970); State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 224 A.2d 718 (1966); Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 63 A.2d 589 (1948), aff'd, 337 U.S. 901, 69 S.Ct. 1046, 93 L.Ed. 1715, reh. denied, 337 U.S. 934, 69 S.Ct. 1493, 93 L.Ed. 1740 (1949); State v. Kemp, 126 Conn. 60, 9 A.2d 63 (1939). In the constitution of 1965 the grand jury provision was moved to article first, 8 and its language modernized.

  9. State v. Canady

    187 Conn. 281 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 28 times
    In State v. Canady, 187 Conn. 281, 285, 445 A.2d 895 (1982), the Supreme Court took a restrictive view of the availability of such a transcript.

    At oral argument before us, the defendant abandoned two claims of error based on the instruction on intent given to the grand jury. See State v. Stepney, 181 Conn. 268, 435 A.2d 701 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 799 (1981). I

  10. State v. Lombard

    471 So. 2d 782 (La. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    A defendant's justification for seeking immunity for a witness is vested in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Art. I, Sec. 16 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, both of which give a person accused of a crime the right to present a defense. In 1980, the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, in United States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, writs denied at 449 U.S. 1077, 101 S.Ct. 856, 66 L.Ed.2d 800, dwelled at length on the history and validity of defense use immunity. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Newman, states in part: