United states v nixon president of
It is the manifest duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.
That argument has been renewed in this Court with emphasis on the contention that the dispute does not present a "case" or "controversy" which can be adjudicated in the federal courts. The President appealed to the Court of Appeals.
United states vs nixon essay
We also conclude there was a sufficient preliminary showing that each of the subpoenaed tapes contains evidence admissible with respect to the offenses charged in the indictment. Marshall v. Isbrandtsen Co. Our own review of the record necessarily affords a less comprehensive view of the total situation than was available to the trial judge, and we are unwilling to conclude that the District Court erred in the evaluation of the Special Prosecutor's showing under Rule 17 c. As to these areas of Art. With respect to many of the tapes, the Special Prosecutor offered the sworn testimony or statements of one or more of the participants in the conversations as to what was said at the time. Gross, 24 F. This case recognized certain fundamental characteristics of the subpoena duces tecum in criminal cases: 1 it was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases, id. United Mine Workers, U. Nixon Historical Background The early s was a time of growing distrust in the National Government. The Court held an order compelling production was appealable because it was unlikely that the third party would risk a contempt citation in order to allow immediate review of the appellant's claim of privilege.
Any other conclusion would be contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite government. In view of our conclusion that there is jurisdiction under 28 U. The court rejected the President's claims of absolute executive privilege, of lack of jurisdiction, and of failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule 17 c.
Clinton v jones
Brewster, U. The District Court rejected jurisdictional challenges based on a contention that the dispute was nonjusticiable because it was between the Special Prosecutor and the Chief Executive and hence "intra-executive" in character; it also rejected the contention that the Judiciary was without authority to review an assertion of executive privilege by the President. Burr, supra, and will discharge his responsibility to see to [p] it that, until released to the Special Prosecutor, no in camera material is revealed to anyone. That argument has been renewed in this Court with emphasis on the contention that the dispute does not present a "case" or "controversy" which can be adjudicated in the federal courts. Powell v. Hayes, U. Sawyer, U.
Vaught, F. This motion of the President was based on the ground that the disclosures to the news media made the reasons for continuance of the protective order no longer meaningful.
Burger's first draft was deemed problematic and insufficient by the rest of the court, leading the other Justices to criticize and re-write major parts of the draft.
based on 101 review