Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Anyone who has gone through the cumbersome and laborious process of trying to obtain discovery from abroad through letters rogatory will appreciate the frustration that gave rise to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties in Criminal Matters (MLATs). Generally, these treaties, which the United States has negotiated with dozens of countries, provide procedures by which prosecutors in one signatory country can obtain evidence located within the territory of the other. These procedures are usually faster and more reliable than letters rogatory or letters of request, in part because the assistance of signatory countries is mandatory, and the procedures for obtaining the requested evidence are standardized. For prosecutors, another advantage is that MLATs, unlike letters rogatory, are of no help to defendants, those under investigation or other interested persons. The mutual assistance available under MLATs includes taking testimony of individuals, providing documents and articles of evidence, locating or identifying persons, serving documents, transferring persons in custody, executing requests for searches and seizures, and tracing and freezing assets.
Foreign Discoverability
Until the proliferation of MLATs, some U.S. courts, before granting assistance to a foreign authority, would first determine whether the requested evidence was discoverable under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction. Some courts, including the First and Eleventh Circuits, found this rule to be implicit in 28 U.S.C. ' 1782(a), the second paragraph of which states that “[a] person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.” In In re Request for Assistance From Ministry of Legal Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago, 848 F.2d 1151 (1988), for example, the Eleventh Circuit held that before turning over evidence in response to a letter of request, “the district court must decide whether the evidence would be discoverable in the foreign country.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.