United States v. Thomas P. Gillespie, Jr.

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 United States Supreme Court \has explicitly distinguished the custodial nature of police interrogations from the grand jury context\
• explaining that Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988), and United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992
• observing that “a defendant making a sufficiency challenge bears a heavy burden”
• prosecutor’s failure to comply 14 No. 23-3216 with DOJ policy on grand jury testimony not basis to dismiss indictment
• “[O]ur obligation is to follow Supreme Court precedent, not contract or expand it....”
• ‘The usual witness before the grand jury, of course, may not remain silent without asserting a privilege, and has no recognized federal rights to counsel in the grand jury room or to appointed counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).