Select Page

Federal Criminal Procedure-Local District Court Rule Does Not Provide Judge Authority to Order “Narrowcast” of Motion Hearing-In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 564 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009)

Since the 1930s, federal courts have expressed great reluctance toward allowing cameras into courtrooms for the purpose of recording or broadcasting proceedings.  Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ban the use of cameras in criminal proceedings, there is...

Criminal Procedure-Supreme Judicial Court Delineates Method for Application of Forfeiture to Indigent Criminal Defendant-Commonwealth v. Means, 907 N.E.2d 646 (Mass. 2009)

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  Nevertheless, indigent defendants may relinquish...

Criminal Procedure-Government May Not Introduce Evidence Derived from Illegal Private Wiretaps Despite Its “Clean Hands”-United States v. Crabtree, 565 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2009)

Congress strictly regulates telephone surveillance—or “wiretapping”—through the comprehensive Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III).  One of Title III’s primary enforcement mechanisms is § 2515, an exclusionary rule that calls...

Criminal Procedure-First Circuit Establishes Less Demanding Requirement of Particularized Need to Access Prior Grand Jury Testimony-In re Grand Jury, 566 F.3d 12(1st Cir. 2009)

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, protecting the secrecy of federal grand jury proceedings, permit limited disclosure of grand jury materials.  Courts have differed on the standard of need grand jury witnesses must show to access prior testimony transcripts....

Constitutional Law-Ninth Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Felon-in-Possession of Body Armor Statute with De Minimus Jurisdictional Element-United States v. Alderman, 565 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 2009), reh’g en banc denied, 593 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2010)

Although Congress may, as a general matter, extensively regulate interstate commerce, the federal government’s authority to legislate in areas of traditional state concern is limited.  Courts, spurred by a renewed interest in federalism, have begun scrutinizing...