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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1917–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Nolinegreen2 sentences1996Similarly, the General Assembly chose to prohibit the refiling of a complaint before a second grand jury absent a showing that the People discovered additional evidence subsequent to the initial grand jury’s decision not to indict: Once a grand jury has returned a no true bill based upon a transaction, set of transactions, event, or events, a grand jury inquiry into the same transaction or events shall not be initiated unless the court finds, upon a proper showing by the prosecuting attorney, that the prosecuting attorney has discovered additional evidence relevant to such inquiry. § 16-5-204( 1996P. 7(c)(2) and 7(h)(4) provide like alternatives of refiling or appeal in the event a direct information filed in district court is dismissed for lack of probable cause following a preliminary hearing. [2] Similarly, the General Assembly chose to prohibit the refiling of a complaint before a second grand jury absent a showing that the People discovered additional evidence subsequent to the initial grand jury's decision not to indict: Once a grand jury has returned a no true bill based upon a transaction, set of transactions, event, or events, a grand jury inquiry into the same transaction or e | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. County Court
neutral
1 sentence1996This decision was based on our interpretation of section 16-5-204(4)(e), 8 C.R.S. (1978), which provides: Once a grand jury has returned no true bill based upon a transaction, set of transactions, event, or events, a grand jury inquiry into the same transaction or events shall not be initiated unless the court finds, upon a proper showing by the prosecuting attorney, that the prosecuting attorney has discovered additional evidence relevant to such inquiry. [8] We construed this provision as protecting individuals "suspected of committing a crime from being harassed by the state." Thomas, 198 C | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Thomas v. CTY. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PUEBLO
green
2 sentences1996This decision was based on our interpretation of section 16-5-204(4)(e), 8 C.R.S. (1978), which provides: Once a grand jury has returned no true bill based upon a transaction, set of transactions, event, or events, a grand jury inquiry into the same transaction or events shall not be initiated unless the court finds, upon a proper showing by the prosecuting attorney, that the prosecuting attorney has discovered additional evidence relevant to such inquiry. 8 We construed this provision as protecting individuals “suspected of committing a crime from being harassed by the state.” Thomas , 198 Co 1996This decision was based on our interpretation of section 16-5-204(4)(e), 8 C.R.S. (1978), which provides: Once a grand jury has returned no true bill based upon a transaction, set of transactions, event, or events, a grand jury inquiry into the same transaction or events shall not be initiated unless the court finds, upon a proper showing by the prosecuting attorney, that the prosecuting attorney has discovered additional evidence relevant to such inquiry. [8] We construed this provision as protecting individuals "suspected of committing a crime from being harassed by the state." Thomas, 198 C | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling
green
2 sentences1984Crim.P. 17(c) states that the court "on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." This rule embodies the restriction of section 16-5-204(4)(i)(II), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), which states that production of documents subpoenaed by a grand jury shall not be required if upon motion and hearing the court finds, among other things, that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. [18] The prosecutor cites Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 , 66 S.Ct. 494 , 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946), and its Colorado progeny [19] 1984Crim.P. 17(c) states that the court "on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." This rule embodies the restriction of section 16-5-204(4)(i)(II), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), which states that production of documents subpoenaed by a grand jury shall not be required if upon motion and hearing the court finds, among other things, that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. [18] The prosecutor cites Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 , 66 S.Ct. 494 , 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946), and its Colorado progeny [19] | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Re Goldman
green
1 sentence1975Mass. 1971) (Senator’s legislative privilege); In re Goldman, 331 F.Supp. 509 (W.D. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
United States v. Doe
green
1 sentence1975In seeking to strike a proper balance between the needs of the grand jury and the privilege declared, the court stated that “[wjhile appearing before the grand jury, pursuant to such a subpoena [the district attorney] may, of course, urge whatever privileges he may claim to have insofar as answering specific questions . . . . ” The court went on to state that ‘ ‘ [a]t that time it is' for the court to decide whether or not such matters are privileged and beyond the reach of a subpoena.” See also United States v. Doe, 332 F.Supp. 930 (D. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State Ex Rel. Poach v. Sly
neutral
2 sentences1939In the case of State v. Sly, supra, relating to a “John Doe” investigation before a magistrate, upon which defendant strongly relies, it is said: “Of course, the John Doe proceeding may be validly employed in good faith in proper case, just as a grand jury investigation may, to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and, if so, who has committed it. 1939In the case of State v. Sly, supra , relating to a "John Doe" investigation before a magistrate, upon which defendant strongly relies, it is said: "Of course, the John Doe proceeding may be validly employed in good faith in proper case, just as a grand jury investigation may, to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and, if so, who has committed it. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
State v. Sargood
neutral
1 sentence1917The rule as applied to testimony before the grand jury is laid down in State v. Sargood, 80 Vt. 415 , 68 Atl. 49 , 130 Am. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Davenport v. Davenport
green
1 sentence1917The rule as applied to testimony before the grand jury is laid down in State v. Sargood, 80 Vt. 415 , 68 Atl. 49 , 130 Am. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.