Comments on: Attorney Speaks about Subpoenas

by: Danny

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:29:59 +0000

Rumors in comment #2,

I’ve been interested in running this down. I never have the time I want/need here, and then Cramer announced his retirment…

Short version… Certainly there are state laws that federal marshalls are expected to obey (speed limits, sales taxes, etc.) and federal law trumps state law where there is conflict. Is there conflict? I’ve gotten mixed responses. Some lawyers have told me that marshalls would be expected to follow state law in this regard. One in particular told me he didn’t think that was the case. I didn’t expect this to be difficult to get an answer.

by: yeah

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:00:24 +0000

but as a US Attorney, Martin is bound by higher ethical and professional standards than “public uproar”… she is required to follow the law.

by: Anonymous

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:58:43 +0000

I am sure there may be so technical reason for Alice Martin not being able to serve a subpoena on the floor of the Senate or the House but I cannot imagine the public is in an uproar that legislators immunity was somehow violated.

by: rumors

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:18:58 +0000

Oops… I just saw the post/discussion on this from Tuesday… so I’ll ask a related but different question:

Does anyone have an update on this front? Danny?

by: rumors

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:14:18 +0000

Is there any truth to the rumors of pending civil/criminal action to be taken against the US Attorney for serving subpoenas at the Capitol? Legislators are supposed to be granted special immunity while they are in session.

At the very least this seems to be grounds for a fairly serious review by the Alabama Bar on Alice Martin’s conduct.