[1]     

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 1996

, [7]     

Decided: December 23, 1996

, [8]      IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA " />

Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe No. 4, 103 F.3D 234, 25 Media L. Rep. 1211 (2d Cir. 12/23/1996)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 1996

No. 897

Docket No. 96-6210

John Doe No. 4,

John Doe No. 1, et al.,

103 F.3d 234, 25 Media L. Rep. 1211, 1997.C02.0000013 <http://www.versuslaw.com>

Decided: December 23, 1996

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA

Before OAKES, ALTIMARI, and MAHONEY, *fn* Circuit Judges.

Argued: October 7, 1996

Respondent-Appellee, v.

Intervenors-Appellants,

Intervenors-Appellants John Doe 1, et al., members of the press who have intervened in John Doe 4's motion to compel the government to disclose alleged illegal electronic surveillance, appeal the district court's order closing the hearing on that motion and sealing all papers relating to it. Appellants assert that the sealing order violates Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) and the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that Rule 6(e)(5) and (6) supports sealing of the motion, and that Rule 6(e)(2) does not prevent its closure. The Court further held that the order does not violate the First Amendment because Appellants' request to open the hearing on the motion fails the test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside


02 VersusLaw, Inc.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.