Questions about Subpoenas
A Montgomery Democrat predicts in email to the Parlor that within 90 days Alice Martin will no longer be US Attorney because of her apparent misstep in serving legislators with subpoenas in Montgomery last week. “Do you think she intentionally broke the law or was she ignorant of the law? Has to be one or the other and both are troubling to no end. She’s overstepped tremendously here. I predict her removal as a US Attorney within 90 Days.”
The Code of Alabama (Section 29-1-7) reads:
Members of the Legislature of Alabama shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest and shall not be subject to service of any summons, citation or other civil process during their attendance at the session of their respective houses and in going to and returning from the same.
My understanding is that people are sometimes asked to give testimony to grand juries or investigators without having to subpoena them. My question: Were these people who were served with subpoenas asked if they would testify before being given subpoenas? Was there reason to believe that they would not testify without being compelled by a subpoena?
Related Articles:
The Feds attempted to serve the subpeonas on the House floor after leaking to the press that they would be doing so. Around 11:00, there were more cameras in the gallery than if Jesus were expected to be resurrected at any moment.
Her attempt to generate more negative publicity surrounding the Legislature did work though. I fielded several questions about “those indictments” this past weekend.
A subpeona is not an indictment.
Not to mention, how is Alice’s own perjury case proceeding?
Comment by Gunney Highway — March 11, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Ask them to remove USA Canary while they’re at it.
Comment by Anonymous — March 11, 2008 @ 9:50 am
The feds don’t have to respect Alabama law.
Comment by Dan — March 11, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Supeonas are useful because the witness has to show and talk. A voluntary witness does not.
As Dan points out, the Constitution says Federal law supercedes State Law, as affirmed in that Virginia court house in 1865.
The US Attorney Manual is on line and easily findable thru a web search.
Comment by walt moffett — March 11, 2008 @ 11:07 am
It is surprising that she would not be censored by the State Bar Association for this. Or do lawyers not police their own anymore?
Comment by Misguided One — March 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
I understand that federal law supercedes state law where there is a conflict, but I don’t understand how this particular state law conflicts with federal law.
Trying to get better understanding, I asked a couple of lawyers about it, “Do you know if it is true that federal agents don’t have to follow state law about where subpoenas may be served?”
One said,
Another said,
Comment by Danny — March 11, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
lets leave the issue of state vs federal law with the real lawyers and the State Bar. As far as the propriety of serving them at the State House, the public has the right to know what is going on. To conclude the act, the served should emulate Arrington when he was had to testify.
Comment by walt moffett — March 11, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
As far as the propriety of serving them at the State House, the public has the right to know what is going on.”
Absolutely, the public has the right to know what is going on. There are other ways to inform the public than turning the criminal justice system into a publicity vehicle for Alice Martin. And, as was pointed out above, a subpoena is a request for testimony. It’s not an indictment or even an indication that the person subpoenaed is suspected of wrongdoing. I suspect the method of delivery was intended to make people think otherwise.
Comment by Kathy — March 11, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Actually, I think it was an effort at intimidation to get better testimony. Then again while I’m speculating (haven’t seen anything yet saying Martin told them to do it that way), the Marshals Service decided to save gas and tax payer dollars by serving as many supoenas in one place as possible.
Comment by walt moffett — March 11, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”
The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.
Comment by Anonymous — March 11, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Dan beat me to my thought in #3, but we’ll wait and see what actual legal minds have to say about this…
Comment by Brian — March 11, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Ignorance of the law is no excuse….least that’s what I’ve always been told. Hope she gets SMACKED DOWN in the most public of manners.
Comment by Loretta Nall — March 12, 2008 @ 8:27 am