Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Glen Smith, Elton Rieara, Elvis Smith and Roland Georgesgreen2 sentences1985Thus, when it is shown that the state's decision not to grant immunity to a defense witness was a decision made with such intent, the court has remedial power to require that the distortion be redressed by requiring a grant of use immunity to the witness as an alternative to a judgment of acquittal. [7] See Virgin Islands, 615 F.2d at 968 ; Herman, 589 F.2d at 1204 . 1982Harris must, and does, place his greatest reliance on Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir.1980), which, apart from reaffirming the Morrison rule that a deliberate attempt by the government to disrupt the fact-finding process should be met with a grant of use immunity to a defense witness, stands alone in announcing that: "In addition, even if there is no evidence of such prosecutorial misconduct, when it is found that a potential defense witness can offer testimony which is clearly exculpatory and essential to the defense case and when the government has no strong inter | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Norman Turkishgreen2 sentences1985While the prosecutor may not prevent or discourage a defense witness from testifying, Washington v. Texas ; Morrison, the compulsory process clause does not place any affirmative obligation on either the prosecutor or the court to *395 secure testimony from a defense witness by replacing the self-incrimination privilege with a grant of use immunity. [12] Turkish, 623 F.2d at 774 . 1982See United States v. Turkish, supra (no need for immunity where witness's testimony cumulative); United States v. Klauber, supra (no need for immunity if evidence otherwise available); United States v. Alessio, supra (no need for immunity where witness's testimony cumulative). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Reginald L. Smithgreen1 sentence1985See also United States v. Smith, 542 F.2d 711, 715 (7th Cir.1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Montgomery
green
2 sentences2011The Montgomery court explained there is an exception in cases of prosecutorial misconduct: when a defendant’s right to subpoena a . witness, and to have the witness available as the defendant finds the witness, is violated by prosecutorial misconduct, then a judgment of acquittal is warranted, unless the state agrees to cure the constitutional violation with a grant of use immunity pursuant to section 914.04. 467 So.2d at 392 . 1989Id. (footnote omitted). | 2 | 1989–2011 |
State v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987We review State v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 487 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), wherein the court construed the United States Constitution and held that a sole owner-corporate custodian of records may not be compelled to produce corporate records pursuant to a subpoena duces te-cum if the act of producing will be communicative and incriminatory, in the absence of a grant of use immunity. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Doe
green
2 sentences1986Both parties seek support from United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 , 104 S.Ct. 1237 , 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984), which held that the act of producing business records of a sole proprietorship could not be compelled without a grant of statutory use immunity. 1986Both parties seek support from United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 , 104 S.Ct. 1237 , 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984), which held that the act of producing business records of a sole proprietorship could not be compelled without a grant of statutory use immunity. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Richard P. Herman, United States of America v. James J. McCann in No. 78-1282
green
2 sentences1985Where such a showing is made, the court has inherent remedial power to require that the distortion be redressed by requiring a grant of use immunity to defense witnesses as an alternative to dismissal. [ Morrison ]. [emphasis added] 589 F.2d at 1203-04 . 1985Thus, when it is shown that the state's decision not to grant immunity to a defense witness was a decision made with such intent, the court has remedial power to require that the distortion be redressed by requiring a grant of use immunity to the witness as an alternative to a judgment of acquittal. [7] See Virgin Islands, 615 F.2d at 968 ; Herman, 589 F.2d at 1204 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
United States v. Gerald N. Klauber
green
1 sentence1982See United States v. Turkish, supra (no need for immunity where witness's testimony cumulative); United States v. Klauber, supra (no need for immunity if evidence otherwise available); United States v. Alessio, supra (no need for immunity where witness's testimony cumulative). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Dominic Alessio
green
1 sentence1982See United States v. Turkish, supra (no need for immunity where witness's testimony cumulative); United States v. Klauber, supra (no need for immunity if evidence otherwise available); United States v. Alessio, supra (no need for immunity where witness's testimony cumulative). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.