The judiciary's right to investigate errant judges behind closed doors came square in the face with the executive branch's subpoena power on Tuesday. A case argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court tests whether a prosecutor can compel the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct's chief investigator to testify in a criminal trial about statements made under cloak of confidentiality.
January 18, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The judiciary’s right to investigate errant judges behind closed doors came square in the face with the executive branch’s subpoena power on Tuesday.
A case argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court tests whether a prosecutor can compel the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct’s chief investigator to testify in a criminal trial about statements made under cloak of confidentiality.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
