Skip navigation

Search

8 results
Article • January 1, 2005 • from P&J January, 2005
U.S. v. Antelope, No. 03-30334 (9th Cir.) (395 F.3d 1128) (January 27, 2005) (Judge M. Margaret McKeown) by In this case, the Court addressed the constitutionality of a popular sex offender treatment program, known as the Sexual Abuse Behavior Evaluation and Recovery program (“SABER”). The program subjects participants to mandatory …
Article • May 1, 1999 • from P&J May, 1999
U.S. v. Aviles, No. 96-10110 (9th Cir.) (170 F.3d 863) (March 15, 1999) (Judge John T. Jr. Noonan) by Although the Court found that the affidavit was deliberately misleading, it held that the district court did not err in not suppressing the wiretap evidence because of the "unlikelihood that the …
Article • June 1, 1998 • from P&J June, 1998
U.S. v. Millard, No. 96-3749 (8th Cir.) (139 F.3d 1200) (March 30, 1998) (Judge John R. Gibson) by Court affirmed that statements made during the course of plea discussions with the Government are not admissible against the defendant who participated in such discussions.
Article • October 1, 1997 • from P&J October, 1997
U.S. v. Smith, No. 97-5176 (3rd Cir.) (123 F.3d 140) (August 19, 1997) (Judge Edward R. Becker) by
Article • September 1, 1997 • from P&J September, 1997
Johnson v. Sawyer, No. 96-20667 (5th Cir.) (120 F.3d 1307) (August 21, 1997) (Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale) by This case explored the availablity of damages, under 26 U.S.C. §7217(a), for the wrongful disclosure of tax return information - even if the information was previously disclosed in a prior criminal proceeding.
Article • January 1, 1995 • from P&J February, 1996
Finn v. Schiller, No. 94-2373 (4th Cir.) (72 F.3d 1182) (January 3, 1996) (Judge Robert F. Chapman) by Case held that violations of Rule 6(e)(2) provide for both civil and criminal contempt, but do not crate a private cause of action.
Article • January 1, 1995
Finn v. Schiller, No. 94-2373 (4th Cir.) (72 F.3d 1182) (January 3, 1996) (Judge Robert F. Chapman) by Case held that violations of Rule 6(e)(2) provide for both civil and criminal contempt, but do not crate a private cause of action.
Article • January 1, 1995
Finn v. Schiller, No. 94-2373 (4th Cir.) (72 F.3d 1182) (January 3, 1996) (Judge Robert F. Chapman) by This case involves the right of citizens to control prosecutorial misconduct arising out of abuses of the General Rule of Secrecy contained in Rule 6(e)(2) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. The plaintiff in this …