United States v. Tomison

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 17(c) permits ex parte applications, noting that “[j]ust because the decision to allow pretrial production is left to the court does not mean that it should be heard in an adversary proceeding.”
• considering the constitutional context of the federal counterpart to M.R.Crim. P. 17(d)
• “Given that this is pretrial production process, it hardly fits as an historically open proceeding.”
• “a subpoena returnable before trial will avoid delay in the government’s prosecution of the case”
• “As the Supreme Court has explained, it is the responsibility of the court, not the opposing party, to ensure that a subpoena secured under Rule 17(c) is for a proper purpose.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).