In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings of the Special April 2002 Grand Jury (2003)

In re Grand Jury Proc. of Special Apr. 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 204 (7th Cir. 2003).

Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of the Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 204-05 (7th Cir.2003).

Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of the Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 204-05 (7th Cir. 2003).

Therefore, those surveillances were performed in accordance with the statutorily established court authorized procedure that satisfies the Fourth Amendment.”); see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 347 F.3d at 206 (“Al courts to consider the issue before FISA was amended by the USA Patriot Act of 2001 have found FISA constitutional”); Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. at 591 (“In the twenty years since it was enacted, FISA has been upheld as constitutional by every court to address th…

See, e.g., United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 625 (6th Cir.2005); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 347 F.3d 197, 206 (7th Cir.2003) ("All courts to consider the issue before FISA was amended by the USA Patriot Act of 2001 have found FISA constitutional.”); United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565, 573 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir.1987); United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Jayyousi, No. 04-60001…

To invoke issue preclusion, four things must be true: “(1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action, (2) the issue must have been actually litigated, (3) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment, and (4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked must be fully represented in the prior action.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special Apr. 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 202 (7th Cir. 2003) (cita…

In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 205 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Duggan, 743 F.2d at 77 ).

For collateral estoppel to apply: “(1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action, (2) the issue must have been actually litigated, (3) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment, and (4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked must be fully represented in the prior action.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 347 F.3d 197, 201-02 (7th Cir.2003).

The defendants cite to one case for this proposition in the body of their argument accompanied by additional citations in a footnote: In re Grand Jury Proceedings of the Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 202 (7th Cir.2003), (the court held that collateral estoppel did not prevent the government from seeking contempt for the defendant’s refusal to testify at a grand jury proceeding following another court's finding five years earlier, regarding a separate grand jur…

See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 201-02 (7th Cir.2003) (setting forth the elements of collateral estoppel).

See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 201-02 (7th Cir. 2003) (setting forth the elements of collateral estoppel).

See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 208 (7th Cir.2003) (stating, inter alia, that "fear for one's own safety and the safety of one's family is not itself 'just cause' for refusing to testify, and thus will not provide a defense to civil contempt in a grand jury proceeding"); United States v. Winter, 70 F.3d 655, 665 (1st Cir.1995) (recognizing that “it has been widely held that a witness* fear of reprisal against himself or h…

See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 205 (7th Cir.2003) (Congress intended that reviewing court “have no greater authority to second-guess the executive branch’s certifications than has the FISA judge”) (citing U.S. v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 77 (2d Cir.1984)).

See In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 204-05 (7th Cir.2003).