Author Archives: pwmollica1961

Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Over Appeal of Denial of Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Where Documents Are Not Claimed to Be Privileged, Holds Ninth Circuit

In In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. 19-10187 (9th Cir. July 27, 2020), the Ninth Circuit considers the scope of Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), which provides an exception to the general rule that denials of motions to quash grand jury subpoenas are not final and appealable orders. The grand jury, investigatingContinue reading “Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Over Appeal of Denial of Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Where Documents Are Not Claimed to Be Privileged, Holds Ninth Circuit”

Eighth Circuit Holds That Deadline Under 26 U.S.C. §6330(d)(1) for Filing Petition for Review in Tax Court Is Jurisdictional

In Boechler P.C. v. CIR, No. 19-2003 (8th Cir. July 24, 2020), the Eighth Circuit holds that the 30-day period under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) for filing an appeal from an IRS determination in the U.S. Tax Court is jurisdictional. Under Article III, Section 1, Congress has the power to create and limit the subject-matterContinue reading “Eighth Circuit Holds That Deadline Under 26 U.S.C. §6330(d)(1) for Filing Petition for Review in Tax Court Is Jurisdictional”

Federal Arbitration Act Requires an Immediate Trial to Resolve Genuine Disputes of Material Fact About Arbitrability, Says D.C. Circuit

A district court erred by not holding an immediate trial to resolve a factual dispute about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate an employment discrimination claim. (Jin v. Parsons Corp., No. 19-7019 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2020).) The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) spells out a procedure in 9 U.S.C. § 4 for when there isContinue reading “Federal Arbitration Act Requires an Immediate Trial to Resolve Genuine Disputes of Material Fact About Arbitrability, Says D.C. Circuit”

Threats Made By Client Against Judge During Attorney-Client Communications Not Covered By Federal Attorney-Client Privilege

In United States  v.  Ivers, No. 19-1563 (8th Cir. July 23, 2020), the Eighth Circuit affirms the conviction of a defendant who allegedly made threats of violence against a federal judge. Some of the testimony admitted by the prosecution was from two lawyers assigned to represent the defendant in an insurance case by a court-basedContinue reading “Threats Made By Client Against Judge During Attorney-Client Communications Not Covered By Federal Attorney-Client Privilege”

Second Circuit Confirms That a 2014 Amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) Expands Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements

In United States v. Purcell, No. 19-238 (2d Cir. July 23, 2020), affirming in substantial part a conviction for operating a prostitution ring, the court considers a challenge to the admissibility of prior consistent statements of a witness, under the recently-amended Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). A prosecution witness, Wood, was cross-examined by the defense aboutContinue reading “Second Circuit Confirms That a 2014 Amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) Expands Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements”