-
[Nixon V. Sirica](ttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2147266338063683504&q=united+states+v.+nixon&hl=en&as_sdt=6,50&as_vis=1&scilh=0' )Chief Judge John J. Sirica issued a subpoena duces tecum for President Nixon, or any subordinate official, which both the President and Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox challenged the legality of. The subpoena called for specific conversation recordings the President and his advisers had from June 20, 1972 to April 15, 1973 and were to be pro
-
Nixon V. Sirica The President filed a Special Appearance and Brief in Opposition in response to this order, here he stated the letter from July 25 had “valid and formal claim of executive privilege” which then meant the District Court “lack[ed] jurisdiction to enter an enforceable order compelling compliance with the subpoena....” The District Court then co
-
Nixon V. Sirica The Chief Judge rejected the President’s challenge of the subpoena and the Court’s jurisdiction. Through the Special Prosecutor and on behalf of the grand jury, the United States ordered a writ commanding the District Court to order full disclosure of the tapes to the grand jury. The tapes were to be disclosed immediately but if they wanted a
-
United States V. Mitchell Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski moved the court for the order of subpoena duces tecum to produce certain tapes and transcripts of conversations from President Nixon he wanted to be able to use in trial during the United States v. John N. Mitchell. This subpoena was not only for President Nixon but anyone “employee with custody or
-
President releases copies of tapes to public but they were edited versions. There were 43 conversations released. This was not what was specified in the subpoena since the tapes were edited and only 43 of the 46 paragraphs were released. United States V. Mitchell
-
United States V. Mitchell President Nixon filed a Special Appearance and Motion to Quash the subpoena including a formal claim of privilege against the subpoena whose evidence consisted mostly of “confidential conversations between a President and his close advisors that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce.”(United States V. Mitchel
-
United States V. Mitchell Upon the edited evidence in the subpoena being turned over and the Motion to Quash there was to be an oral argument in camera on May 13, 1974. Here the President argued that the court had no jurisdiction to enforce the instant subpoena on two grounds. The first ground is they have no jurisdiction when executive privilege is asserte
-
United States V. Mitchell Looking at both sides the court analyzed the situation very carefully coming to the conclusion that executive privilege could not be claimed in this manner, denying the President’s Motion to Quash. The court then set a date for the original subpoenaed evidence to be supplied on or before May 31, 1974. The same rules applied to this
-
United States V. Mitchell The President ordered an appeal for review of the Court’s order causing the Court’s order to be stayed until said review.
-
United States V. Nixon Following the appeal of the United States V. Mitchell case the President filed for a cross-petition for writ of certiorari before judgement on June 6, basically asking for the Supreme Court to give a ruling on what was already given on the case. A cross-petition of the case was granted June 15, 1974 and was set to be argued July 8, 1974.
-
United States V. Nixon When the Supreme Court came out with its final ruling it agreed with the Appeals Court. The Supreme Court also pushed for the impeachment of the President but couldn’t do so as President Nixon resigned before they could. There was a lot of controversy after the ruling either or not the President should be put on trial for conspiracy for trying
