United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Biographical details

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit U.S. v. Heldt 668 F.2d 1238 (1981…

Unless these circumstances are identified and applied, any warrant authorizing a search for a particular document might, in conjunction with the plain view exception, permit "a government official to use a seemingly precise and legal warrant only as a ticket to get into a man's home, and, once inside, to launch forth upon unconfined searches and indiscriminate seizures as if armed with all the unbridled and illegal power of a general warrant."
Source: Wikisource

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit American Society for Testing and Materials v… (2018)

The Court’s fair-use analysis faithfully recites the governing four-factor balancing test, yet, in conducting the balancing, it puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of an unrestrained ability to say what the law is. Thus, when an incorporated standard sets forth binding legal obligations, and when the defendant does no more and no less than disseminate an exact copy of it, three of the four relevant factors—purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, and amount and substantiality of the copying—are said to weigh “heavily” or “strongly” in favor of fair use.
Source: Wikisource

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit U.S. v. Heldt 668 F.2d 1238 (1981…

Granting "use" immunity thus increases the potential burden of proof the government must bear. If defendants could obtain testimonial immunity for other defendants to testify, it would inevitably snarl criminal proceedings. The imagination of defense counsel could run riot and, with the government being unable to control the extent of the witness' testimony, immunity and claims of immunity for the codefendant witness would be sprouting with every answer.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature