Preview

What Is Subpoena Duces Tecum

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
82 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
What Is Subpoena Duces Tecum
Subpoena duces tecum is a subpoena, for an individual to appear in court. It commands a person to bring specific documents or object with them. A defendant is not required to comply with subpoena if and only if the privilege of the Fifth Amendment could be broke. If the information that a defendant is supposed to share self-incriminates them they are lawfully allowed to withhold the documents legally. The privilege against the Fifth Amendment does not prevent secondary evidence from being
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Rhodes Vs Detroit Medical Center Summary
    • 927 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Rhodes Vs Detroit Medical Center Summary

    This would mean that the defendant had the right to detain the defendant. The defendant can not be liable for the arrest of the defendant, which was performed by police officers in response to the resistance of the plaintiff, Holguin. Conclusion While the district court believed that Holguin’s concealment of the merchandise by placing it into her tote was willful concealment and satisfied probable cause that she intended to shoplift, the Court of Appeals disagreed, requiring more evidence of intent than just simply putting the item out of sight. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the order…

    • 927 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ecobedo Vs. Illinois Case Study
    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Ecobedo Vs. Illinois Case Study

    The case of Escobedo V. Illinois set the precedent for the sixth amendment, which is the right to a counsel. It guaranteed that if a person is arrested then they must be informed of their legal rights, which gives them the right to remain silent. When Danny Escobedo was arrested in connection for the shooting of one of his relatives he received an 18-hour interrogation and was later released for not making any self-incriminating statements. Another suspect was later arrested and told police that Escobedo had committed the murder. He was then once again arrested and this time interrogated through the entire night. His attorney had been repeatedly denied permission to talk to his client. Escobedo as well had repeatedly asked to see his lawyer…

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format
    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Rochin Vs. California Year: 1952
    • 4749 Words
    • 19 Pages

    Rochin Vs. California Year: 1952

    Although an arrest warrant was procured against the petitioner, he claims that the evidence seized from his home was done so without a search warrant, violating his 4th Amendment rights.…

    • 4749 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study
    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    In the Miranda vs Arizona case Miranda established that the police are required to inform arrested persons that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the state of Arizona, by obtaining a confession from him without having informed him of his right to have a lawyer present, had violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment regarding self incrimination. Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape and was interrogated for a long period of time. This interrogation resulted in a signed confession. At court Miranda lawyer argued that the confession was obtained from a person who does not understand their rights. The court agreed that a person should be informed of their rights and understand them before the police…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Motion to Compel
    • 323 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Motion to Compel

    2. Defendant believes that by the Plaintiff not complying with the discovery request as requested that the Plaintiff be found in contempt for not answering the following interrogatories:…

    • 323 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Schmerber V. California Case Brief
    • 418 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Schmerber V. California Case Brief

    No. The Supreme Court based its finding on precedent. While acknowledging that the State “compelled [petitioner] to submit to an attempt to discover evidence that might used to prosecute him,” it did not mean that he had been compelled “to be a witness against himself.” The Court concluded that the privilege is “a bar against compelling ‘communications’ or ‘testimony,’ but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of ‘real or physical evidence’ does not violate it.” The Court also listed fingerprints, photographs, measurements, writing or speaking samples, and the like as not being privileged.…

    • 418 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay
    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    In the Supreme Court, case Miranda v. Arizona involved an individual by the name of Ernesto Miranda and the state of Arizona. Ernesto Miranda who was accused of kidnapping and raping women was arrested by police and questioned for about two hours until policed obtain a written statement confession to the crimes (Miranda v. Arizona). In trial, the police officers admitted they did not notifying Miranda of his right to have an attorney present when being questioned about the chargers; however, Miranda was convicted by the Arizona state court and sentenced to prison. Miranda’s attorney appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona, but the court upheld the state’s decision stating that “Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel” (Miranda v. Arizona).…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs Arizona
    • 1189 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Miranda vs Arizona

    In Miranda v. Arizona, The issue the court had to consider was if the statements obtained from Mr. Miranda while he was subjected to police interrogation would be admissible against him in a criminal trial, and if the police procedures which ensures Mr. Miranda is made aware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment not to be forced to incriminate himself, are necessary.…

    • 1189 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Policing and the Constitution
    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Policing and the Constitution

    The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Set out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. This means that the officer does not determine innocence or guilt. She or he only determines probable cause of belief of guilt. Also, an officer cannot force a person to bear witness against himself. If a person is tried and a verdict is given, that person cannot be tried again. Accused persons cannot be forced to say anything. Eminent domain is the power of a government to take private property for public use, usually with compensation paid to the owner.…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Motion to Compel Discovery
    • 329 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Motion to Compel Discovery

    Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Local Rules of the United State District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Defendant, by its counsel, moves this court for the entry of an order compelling the Plaintiff to fully comply with the Defendant’s discovery requests and cure the discovery deficiencies within fourteen (14) days of the order.…

    • 329 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More

Related Topics