Select Page

Constitutional Law-Court of International Trade Holds Article III Standing Not Required to Intervene in Existing Litigation-Canadian Wheat Board v. United States, 637 F.Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009)

Aug 4, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 4, Print Edition, Volume 43

Article III of the United States Constitution (Article III) explicitly limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to deciding only “cases” and “controversies.”  Although the United States Supreme Court has interpreted Article III as implicitly requiring prospective...

Arbitration Law-Second Circuit Holds Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act Does Not Permit Arbitration Panels to Issue Prehearing Document Subpoenas to Nonparties-Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London, 549 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2008)

Aug 4, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 4, Print Edition, Volume 43

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) ensures judicial enforcement and validity of private arbitration agreements.  Section 7 of the FAA is the only section that deals with discovery, and grants arbitration panels the authority to summon persons before the panel as...

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)

May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Volume 43

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)

May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43

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)

May 27, 2010 | Case Comments, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 43

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...