D4-us-nixon-digest.docx

D4. US vs Nixon Facts: 

 

   

March 1, 1974- a grand jury of the US District Court for the District of Columbia returned an indictment charging seven individuals, with various offenses including conspiracy to defraud US and to obstruct justice. President Richard Nixon- not designated in the indictment BUT was NAMED as an UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR Special Prosecutor- issued a subpoena duces tecum in accordance with rule 17(c) to the president by the US District Court which required the production of certain tapes, memoranda, papers, transcripts or other writings relating to certain precisely identified meetings between the President and others.  Special Prosecutor- has powers vested by the Attorney General to contest the invocation of the executive privilege in the process of seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of these specially delegated duties  Subpoena Duces Tecum- court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court or to produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at the hearing or trial April 30, 1964- Nixon publicly released edited transcripts of 43 conversations; portions of 20 conversations subject to subpoena in the present case were included. NIXON- motioned to QUASH the subpoena with a formal claim of PRIVILEGE District court- denied the motion to quash and all other motions. District court- there is no jurisdictional challenges because it was between the Special Prosecutor and the President and hence it is “INTRA-EXECUTIVE” in character

ISSUES: 1. W/N this petition is under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals when the petition for certiorari was filed 2. W/N the court has the jurisdiction to issue the subpoena duces tecum since the matter at hand is a case of an intra-branch dispute between a subordinate and superior officer of the Executive branch and hence not a subject of judicial review 3. W/N the special prosecutor is authorized to issue subpoena under rule 17(c) 4. W/N the President should be honored to a claim of privilege RULING: 1. Yes. The petition filed is properly “in” the court of appeals. Because the issue of whether the president could be cited for contempt could engender protracted litigation and would further delay both review on the merits of his claim of privilege and the ultimate termination of the underlying criminal action for which his evidence is sought. Therefore the order of the District court was an appealable order

2. Yes. Although there is an intra-branch dispute, the court must look into the nature of the proceeding which is a criminal prosecution alleging a violation of federal laws. The congress has vested in the attorney general(AG) the power to conduct criminal litigation of the US Government and it has also vested the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties and the AG has vested unique authority to the special prosecutor which is that they have the explicit power to contest invocation of executive privilege in the process of seeking evidence deemed relevant to their specially designated duties 3. YES. Rule 17(C) provides: "A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects designated therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered in evidence and may upon their production permit the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys." It can only be quashed if the production would be UNREASONABLE or OPPRESSIVEwhich is not in this case. Therefore the court has the authority to issue subpoena under rule 17(c) 4. NO. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. There is an absent claim that there is a need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. NOTE: This case is the proceeding of the famous Watergate cover-up controversy. 