Boerum Case Study
OPINIONS BELOW
The decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Boerum is unreported. The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit is also unreported.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES The texts of the following constitutional provisions are reproduced in Appendix A: U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. V; and U.S. Const. amend. VI.
The texts of the following federal statutes are reproduced in Appendix B: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2005); 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2005); 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (2005); and 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (2005).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW Where a trial court makes a ruling as a matter of law, the standard of review is de novo. United States v. Gaviria, 116 F.3d 1498, 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Alleged violations of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation …show more content…
§ 3731, appealing the district court's ruling against the Government on the motion in limine and the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. (R. at 38). The court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling, in part, that the statements fail as a matter of law to qualify as excited utterances. (R. at 43). The Fourteenth Circuit also found the statements to be barred by the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington. (R. at 45). The court further upheld the district court's decision to quash the subpoena duces tecum, finding that Boyd v. United States still governed with respect to the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause. (R. at 49). Accordingly, the court found that the compelled production of Respondent's diary was unconstitutional. (R. at 48). The United States of America then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. (R. at 56). On October 6, 2004, this Court granted certiorari. (R. at 56).
SUMMARY OF THE
The decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Boerum is unreported. The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit is also unreported.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES The texts of the following constitutional provisions are reproduced in Appendix A: U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. V; and U.S. Const. amend. VI.
The texts of the following federal statutes are reproduced in Appendix B: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2005); 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2005); 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (2005); and 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (2005).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW Where a trial court makes a ruling as a matter of law, the standard of review is de novo. United States v. Gaviria, 116 F.3d 1498, 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Alleged violations of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation …show more content…
§ 3731, appealing the district court's ruling against the Government on the motion in limine and the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. (R. at 38). The court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling, in part, that the statements fail as a matter of law to qualify as excited utterances. (R. at 43). The Fourteenth Circuit also found the statements to be barred by the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington. (R. at 45). The court further upheld the district court's decision to quash the subpoena duces tecum, finding that Boyd v. United States still governed with respect to the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause. (R. at 49). Accordingly, the court found that the compelled production of Respondent's diary was unconstitutional. (R. at 48). The United States of America then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. (R. at 56). On October 6, 2004, this Court granted certiorari. (R. at 56).
SUMMARY OF THE