UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MEDJUCK, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “the Canadian witnesses were unavailable for trial because they were beyond the subpoena power of the United States and refused voluntarily to attend”
• concluding that, where the government “demonstrat[ed] . . . the impossibility of obtaining [the defendant’s] physical presence on terms acceptable to the Government” at a Rule 15 deposition, admission of the deposition did not violate the Confrontation Clause
• noting that the Confrontation Clause serves to ensure that witnesses will testify 22 under oath, to force witnesses to undergo cross-examination, and to permit the jury to 23 observe the demeanor of witnesses
• finding essential that the defendant could, at a Rule 15 deposition, “cross-examine the deposed witness[]’
• stating that the government must demonstrate \nexus\
• stating that the government must demonstrate “nexus”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).