Legal Opinion
Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Field
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 9, 1976No. M-11-18PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PIERCE, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioners on this motion, David A. Field (Field) and Anthony G. DiFalco (DiFalco), are attorneys who have been subpoenaed to appear before a United States Federal Grand Jury for the Southern District of New York. The purpose of the grand jury’s inquiry has been stated to be determining the whereabouts of one Carlo Bordoni (Bordoni), a client of Field and DiFalco and a person sought by the grand jury as a witness. Field and DiFalco have moved, pursuant to Rule 17(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., to quash the subpoenas on the ground that to require them to provide…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Branzburg v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. BryanSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Priest v. HennessyNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- In the Matter of Carl Walsh, a Witness Before the Special September 1978 Grand Jury. Appeal of United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
- In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Jacqueline F.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Commonwealth v. MaguiganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- OKC Corp. v. WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1978
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.