They contend that "adversarial fairness" prevents the United States from relying on the similar motive requirement in this case. It is therefore clear that before the grand jury the Government had precisely the same interest in establishing that Bruno's and DeMatteis' testimony was false as it had at trial.
We think that the Act survives a challenge founded upon the Eighth Amendment. The Court squarely rejected this proposition: In addition, the respondents mistakenly argue that adversarial fairness prohibits the suppression of exculpatory evidence produced in grand jury proceedings.
Play media Overview of the United States legislative process, as explained by the Library of Congress Inthis committee of representatives prosecuted president Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial, but the Senate did not convict him.
Most incumbents seek re-election, and their historical likelihood of winning subsequent elections exceeds 90 percent. For even if we were to conclude that the Eighth Amendment imposes some substantive limitations on the National Legislature's powers in this area, we would still hold that the Bail Reform Act is valid.
Because "similar motive" does not mean "identical motive," the similar-motive inquiry, in my view, is inherently a factual inquiry, depending in part on the similarity of the underlying issues and on the context of the grand jury questioning.
While the Government's general interest in preventing crime is compelling, even this interest is heightened when the Government musters convincing proof that the arrestee, already indicted or held to answer for a serious crime, presents a demonstrable danger to the community.
Instead, we ordered disclosure under the specific language of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 e. Under these narrow circumstances, society's interest in crime prevention is at its greatest. If a witness inculpates a defendant during the grand jury proceedings, the United States immunizes him and calls him at trial; however, if the witness exculpates the defendant, as Bruno and DeMatteis each did here, the United States refuses to immunize him and attempts to exclude the testimony as hearsay.
The Bail Reform Act of responds to an even more particularized governmental interest than the interest we sustained in Schall. IIIas the solution to a bail crisis in the federal courts.
The Court of Appeals, as noted, erroneously concluded that the respondents did not have to demonstrate a similar motive in this case to make use of Rule b 1.
The Family purportedly allocated contracts for these projects among a so-called "Club" of six concrete companies in exchange for a share of the proceeds.
As the Court explains, ante, atthe grand jury testimony of Bruno and DeMatteis was totally inconsistent with the Government's theory of the alleged RICO conspiracy to rig bids on large construction projects in Manhattan.
Because the scope of questioning is necessarily limited by the scope of the legal and factual issues in a given proceeding, a party has little motive, and indeed may not be permitted, to ask questions about other issues.
Moreover, as in Schall v. The Government must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. The respondents, in contrast, urge us not to read Rule b 1 in a "slavishly literal fashion.
Finally, respondents concede and the Court of Appeals noted that an arrestee may be incarcerated until trial if he presents a risk of flight, see Bell v. On the other side of the scale, of course, is the individual's strong interest in liberty.
Bruno and DeMatteis were principals in Cedar Park Construction Corporation Cedar Parkwhich, according to the Government, was a member of the so-called "Club" of concrete companies that submitted rigged bids on construction projects in accordance with the orders of the Genovese Family of La Cosa Nostra.
Rather than to address this issue here in the first instance, we think it prudent to remand the case for further consideration. The District Court refused to admit the grand jury testimony.
Train tickets, rail pass: with Rail Europe enjoy a rail travel across Europe. Travel by train in Europe with Rail Europe, your travel planner. United States v.
Salerno, U.S. (), was a United States Supreme Court decision. It determined that the Bail Reform Act ofwhich permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially dangerous to other people in the community, was constitutional.
It violated neither the US Constitution's Due Process. View this case and other resources at: Citation. U.S. Brief Fact Summary.
A number of members of a New York City criminal organization were indicted on charges relating to conspiracy in the construction industry. The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the Federal government of the United sgtraslochi.com legislature consists of two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Both senators and representatives are chosen through direct election, though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a gubernatorial.
History of United States Naval Operations in World War II 15 Volume Set [Samuel Eliot Morison] on sgtraslochi.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. the Navy's official history of World War Two. United States v.
Salerno, WLNo.at *1 (7th Cir. August 1, ) (unpublished order). In this regard, one can easily envision a situation where Salerno did not extort Kopulos or Jahoda, yet still find that the Ferriola Street Crew existed, that Salerno was a member of the Crew, and that the Crew engaged in racketeering.United states v salerno