United States v. Henry Helstoski, D. John Mazella, Alfred A. Porro and Vincent L. Verdiramo

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the “purposes served by invoking the speech or debate clause vary greatly from those that the Supreme Court has considered and rejected in other cases seeking to quash indictments”
• dismissing the entire indictment because of “wholesale violation of the speech or debate clause before a grand jury”
• \All that is required is that in presenting material to the grand jury the prosecutor uphold the Constitution and refrain from introducing evidence of past legislative acts or the motivation for performing them.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).