No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Appellant, Joseph Azar, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a subpoena obtained by the U.S. Department of Justice at the request of the Minister of Legal Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago. The United States had sought the subpoena to obtain Azar’s Florida bank records as part of a criminal investigation in Trinidad and Tobago. On review, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (per Fay, J.) affirmed the district court’s decision and held that 28 U.S.C. §1782 authorized the judicial assistance sought by the Minister of Legal Affairs even though there was no pending proceeding in Trinidad and Tobago.
1 In re Request for Assistance from Ministry of Legal Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago, 648 F.Supp. 464 (S.D. Fla. 1986).
2 848 F.2d 1151, 1152.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) (1982) (emphasis added).
4 Laws of Trinidad and Tobago, ch. 79:50.
5 See Smit, International Litigation Under the United States Code, 65 Colum. L. Rev. 1015, 1026 n.72 (1965) (emphasis added).
6 848 F.2d at 1153; see also In re Letter Rogatory from the Justice Court, District of Montreal, Canada, 523 F.2d 562, 565 (6th Cir. 1975).
7 Other proposals broadened §1782 to cover the production of documents (the section had previously applied only to depositions and testimony) and the use of evidence before administrative tribunals (it had previously applied only to the use of evidence before courts). 848 F.2d at 1151.
8 In re Letter Rogatory, 523 F.2d at 565 (quoting Amram, New Developments in International Judicial Assistance in the United States of America, 32 J.B.A.D.C. 24, 28 (1965)).
9 See Smit, supra note 5, at 1026 & n.72.
10 848 F.2d at 1154.
11 Id. at 1154–55.
12 Smit, supra note 5, at 1026.
13 848 F.2d at 1155.
14 S. Rep. No. 1580, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3782, 3788 (Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee).
15 See 848 F.2d at 1155.
16 S. Rep. No. 1580, supra note 14, 1964 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 3789 (emphasis added).
17 848F.2dat 1155.
18 Id. at 1156.
19 S. Rep. No. 1580, supra note 14, 1964 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 3788.
20 Moreover, a series of exchange control violations is sometimes involved in the financing of large-scale illegal drug transactions.
21 The court itself may have created some confusion in this regard. In its opinion it first described its test as one requiring that the requested evidence “be of use” in a proceeding (848 F.2d at 1155), but it then focused on whether the evidence would ultimately be used in such a proceeding (id. at 1156). The second test requires the court to assess the probability that there will be such a proceeding, whereas the first could be interpreted as requiring it to analyze solely the utility of the evidence should a proceeding go forward.
22 Id. at 1155.