U.S. v. Nixon: III: Rule 17(c) Summary

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.