Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Subpoenas
- Nixon challenges the subpoena on the grounds that Rule 17(c), which allows a subpoena to order a witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects to be used as evidence, was not satisfied by the special prosecutor.
- The court then discusses, at length, how Nixon is wrong, and the special prosecutor did indeed satisfy the requirements of Rule 17(c).
- Not, of course, to be confused with Rule 17(d), which we have no idea about.
- He discusses the history of laws regarding subpoenas, which say that unless it's unreasonably burdensome to produce the subpoenaed info, you have to do it.
- Also, the prosecutor has to show that you can't get the info any other way (like asking for it nicely), that the prosecutor can't properly prepare for a trial without it, and that it's not just a fishing expedition.
- Basically, the special prosecutor has to jump three hurdles to subpoena the president: relevancy, admissibility, and specificity.
Relevancy
- The Court recognizes that the special prosecutor couldn't know for sure if the requested tapes would be relevant in the case, but there was a very strong likelihood that the tapes contain conversations relevant to the crimes mentioned in the indictments.
- The special prosecutor also provided sworn statements from the people on the tapes about what was mentioned on said tapes.
- That sounds like bad news for the president.
Admissibility
- Nixon's lawyers claim that the tapes were inadmissible in court, because the conversations happened outside the courtroom so the participants on the tapes wouldn't be able to be cross-examined about what they said.
- But the Supreme Court argues that the tapes are admissible in court, because most of the participants on the tapes were indicted for federal crimes; thus they are co-conspirators.
- The tapes could also be admissible in court because they could challenge the testimony or credibility of a witness.
Specificity
- Very similar to the "relevancy" argument, the Court finds that the special prosecutor was specific enough in his request for the tapes.
- Even though the Court recognizes that, in a case involving the president, the requirements of Rule 17(c) have to be meticulously met, the subpoena stands.
- Sorry, Nixon.