Legal Opinion
United States v. Binh Tang Vo
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 15, 2015No. Criminal No. 2013-0168PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Emmet G. Sullivan, United States - District Judge
The government’s power when prosecuting criminal cases is not infinite. Nor does it extend to any power not specifically forbidden by law. In this case, the government has ostensibly exercised the power to serve subpoenas duces tecum,,a power provided by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17. The government has not relied on any other authority for its ac tions, so it would seem obvious that the government may serve subpoenas only in a manner authorized by Rule 17.
The government in this- case overstepped Rule 17. It issued two…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Church of Scientology of California v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. DionisioSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. ApodacaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- United States v. NixDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2017
- State v. HayesOhio Court of Appeals · 2025
- In Re: 4744 Subpoenas Duces TecumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
- Queen v. SchmidtDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.