18 U.S.C. § 3503
Repealed. Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(c)(3)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases, 1972–2010 · leading case: United States v. Andre Willis King, United States of Am. v. Fred Neil Powell, 552 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1977).
United States v. Andre Willis King, United States of Am. v. Fred Neil Powell, 552 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1977). “Use of Deposition Testimony under 18 U.S.C. § 3503 A key component of the Government’s case rested on the testimony of two unindicted co-conspirators, Adams and Gamble.”
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). “V) (appoint; criminal defendant); 18 U. S. C. § 3503 (c) (assign; criminal defendant at deposition to preserve testimony); 18 U.”
United States v. James Anthony Sines, 761 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1985). “15 and 18 U.S.C. § 3503 (1982) to take a videotaped deposition of Steneman for use in its case against Sines, claiming that Steneman qualified as an unavailable witness because of his lengthy prison sentence in Thailand and because of the Thai government’s unwillingness to…”
Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 (1979). “15 and 18 U. S. C. § 3503 . A court order authorizing the deposition was never obtained.”
H. J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989). “" 18 U. S. C. § 3503 (a). Moreover, Congress' approach in RICO can be contrasted with its decision to enact explicit limitations to organized crime in other statutes.”
United States v. Perry Russell Tunnell, 667 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1982). “o demonstrate aiding and abetting in the RICO predicate offenses; (5) whether he was denied the sixth amendment right to confrontation when the government used Russell’s videotape testimony; (6) whether the district court erred in allowing the videotape testimony into evidence…”
Commonwealth v. Stasko, 370 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1977). “15; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3503 . In United States v. Ricketson, 498 F.”
United States v. James Bernard Singleton, 460 F.2d 1148 (2d Cir. 1972). “Thereupon, the trial court granted the Government’s motion to take Morris’ deposition in Mobile pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3503 and set the final trial date for July 22, 1971.”
United States v. Cleophas James Kearney, United States of Am. v. Eugene Lemon, Jr., 560 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1977). “In preparation for trial, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3503 , the Government deposed Thomas Adams and Thomas Gamble, two unindicted accomplices who were incarcerated in Japan for violations of Japanese narcotics laws.”
United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir. 1989). “Cross-Examination of Waridel First, appellants argue that the admission into evidence of the deposition of Paul Waridel, who was then incarcerated in Switzerland and facing criminal charges there, violated their rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and…”
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 697 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.R.I. 2010). “As part of that legislation, 18 U.S.C. § 3503 (a) (Title VI) allowed the government to take depositions in a criminal case when a defendant was alleged to have participated in organized criminal activity.”
In Re United States of Am. v. Jane Kember & Morris Budlong, Mary Sue Hubbard, Henning Heldt, Richard Weigand, & Gregory Willardson, 648 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Related to their latter contention is an insistence that, as potential trial defendants under the other criminal charges in the continuing indictment, they are unlawfully being deposed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3503 (d) and Rules 15 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.