Legal Opinion

McMahon v. Office of City and County of Honolulu

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1970No. 4948PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant McMahon petitions this court for: (1) an order compelling the presence of a court reporter at any grand jury session which might indict him, and (2) an order preventing the prosecution from presenting to the grand jury evidence which the District Court has already ruled was unconstitutionally seized.

JURISDICTION

We are faced with serious jurisdictional difficulty. Our state constitution provides that “[t]he several courts shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as provided by law.” Haw. Const. art. V, § 1; see also art. III, § 4, art. V, § 6. In this respect it is quite unlike…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  3. Dennis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Clifton Gregory v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
  5. People Ex Rel. Lemon v. Supreme CourtNew York Court of Appeals · 1927

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. GreerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1980
  2. State v. JoaoHawaii Supreme Court · 1971
  3. State v. WakinekonaHawaii Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Harris v. DeSotoHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Sapienza v. HayashiHawaii Supreme Court · 1976

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API