Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's en
65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's en
5 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (1 at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's en
at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's en
65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (61)
Entities connected to both L.J. Ann and The Courts
Michael Douglas
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
the Executive Office's
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Town of Newton
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Federal Trade Communication
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Prac. & Fed
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
MI
Milinazzo
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Miller & Marcus
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
George W. Bush
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
United States
LOCATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
WR
Wright
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
WA
Wayte
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Table
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Main Justice
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
ST
Subpoena Duces Tecum
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
HI
Hickman
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
RR
Richard M. Rosenbaum
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Michael Jackson
PERSON5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
the Southern District
LOCATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The
Atlanta Gas Light Co.
ORGANIZATION5 w/ L.J.·4 w/ The