Skip navigation

Search

7 results
Article • November 8, 2010 • from P&J November, 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rajaratnam, No. 10-462-cv (2nd Cir.) (622 F.3d 159) (September 20, 2010) (Judge Gerard E. Lynch) by In this decision, the Second Circuit overturned an order requiring defendants in the Galleon securities fraud case (an offshoot of what has been labeled “the largest hedge-fund insider trading …
Article • September 1, 2006 • from P&J September, 2006
U.S. v. Harris, No. 05-3808 (7th Cir.) (464 F.3d 733) (September 27, 2006) (Judge Ann Claire Williams) by Here the Court reversed a drug conviction and remanded for a Franks hearing after concluding that the district court had erred when it allowed the Government to bolster the magistrate's probable cause …
Article • March 11, 2003
Franks v. Delaware, No. 77-5176 (U.S. Supreme Court) (438 U.S. 154; 98 S.Ct. 2674) (June 26, 1978) (Justice Blackmun) by Here the Court held that evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant based on materially false and misleading information is not admissible absent a hearing (a "Franks hearing") to determine …
Article • March 1, 1999 • from P&J March, 1999
U.S. v. McClellan, No. 97-3370 (7th Cir.) (165 F.3d 535) (January 4, 1999) (Judge John L. Coffey) by In rejecting a claim of error based on a refusal to grant a Frank's hearing, the Court ruled that such refusal is reviewed only for clear error and "we presume that the …
Article • June 1, 1998 • from P&J June, 1998
U.S. v. Gruber, No. CR94-2022-MJM (N.D.Iowa) (994 F.Supp. 1026) (February 3, 1998) (Judge Mark W. Bennett) by Case is noted for one of Judge Bennett's typically detailed analyses, this time on the correct standards for wiretap evidence - from probable cause, to the necessity requirements, to the Government's obligations to …
Article • May 1, 1998 • from P&J May, 1998
U.S. v. King, No. 96 CR 839(NG) (E.D.N.Y.) (991 F.Supp. 77) (January 7, 1998) (Judge Nina Gershon) by Case rejected a broad range of challenges to wiretap evidence and held that defendants were not entitled to a Franks hearing on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the application papers.
Article • December 1, 1997 • from P&J December, 1997
U.S. v. Salemme, No. 94-10287 (D.Mass.) (978 F.Supp. 386) (June 26, 1997) (Judge Mark L. Wolf) by This series of six Orders bristles with intrigue, coverups and undercurrents of serious Government misconduct. For example, in an ex parte submission to the Magistrate Judge initially involved in this case, the Government …