Legal Opinion
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated May 9, 1990
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 20, 1990No. M 11-189PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant has moved to quash a grand jury subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons set forth below the motion is granted.
The Instant Motion
Defense counsel accepted a grand jury subpoena duces tecum on behalf of mov-ant, requiring movant to appear before the grand jury on May 18,1990. The subpoena orders production of “any and all diaries, appointment books and telephone and address books” maintained by movant during the period from January 1, 1978 through December 31, 1984 and all tape recordings of conversations…
2Cases cited71 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. NachamieDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- United States v. BeckfordDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1997
- United States v. TuckerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- United States v. ReyesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- United States v. RaphaelDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.