Out of State Subpoena

[Taxing Matters]

Provide a link, please. Thanks.

I'll provide some links then. The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act in § 2(5) defines a subpoena for purposes of the Act as follows:

(5) “Subpoena” means a document, however denominated, issued under authority of a court of record requiring a person to:​

(A) attend and give testimony at a deposition;​

(B) produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents,records, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the possession, custody, or controlof the person; or​

(C) permit inspection of premises under the control of the person.​

​

(Bolding added.) As you can see from what I put in bold, it does not cover subpoenas for the purpose of testifying at a hearing or trial, only for giving testimony at a deposition. Indiana's adoption of the Act uses the same definition. See Indiana Code 34-44.5-1-5(5). So I agree with LdiJ on this one. This Act is not applicable to subpoenas for testimony at a trial.

 

[Just Blue]

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-practical-guide-to-obtaining-a-69836/

 

[LdiJ]

Haha. It is NEVER up to you, is it?

Once again, everybody here knows that its not possible to prove a negative. If you knew that you were right you should be anxious to post it here to prove me wrong.

 

[LdiJ]

I'll provide some links then. The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act in § 2(5) defines a subpoena for purposes of the Act as follows:

(5) “Subpoena” means a document, however denominated, issued under authority of a court of record requiring a person to:​

(A) attend and give testimony at a deposition;​

(B) produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents,records, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the possession, custody, or controlof the person; or​

(C) permit inspection of premises under the control of the person.​

​

(Bolding added.) As you can see from what I put in bold, it does not cover subpoenas for the purpose of testifying at a hearing or trial, only for giving testimony at a deposition. Indiana's adoption of the Act uses the same definition. See Indiana Code 34-44.5-1-5(5). So I agree with LdiJ on this one. This Act is not applicable to subpoenas for testimony at a trial.

Thank you TM

 

[quincy]

Keep feeding LdiJ fish, TM.

Three subpoenas have been served. One was to appear as a character witness in court in Illinois. One apparently involves Indiana. We were told nothing about the third subpoena. I don’t think we know nearly enough to say what is going on.

Here is a link to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on subpoenas:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_17

 

[Taxing Matters]

Three subpoenas have been served. One was to appear as a character witness in court in Illinois. One apparently involves Indiana. We were told nothing about the third subpoena. I don’t think we know nearly enough to say what is going on.

I agree it would be helpful to have more details.

Here is a link to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on subpoenas:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_17

Just so the OP understands, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only apply in prosecutions in federal court. From the sound of it, it seems that the OP is dealing with a state court subpoena, in which case the federal rules would not apply.

 

[quincy]

I agree it would be helpful to have more details.



Just so the OP understands, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only apply in prosecutions in federal court. From the sound of it, it seems that the OP is dealing with a state court subpoena, in which case the federal rules would not apply.

We have NO idea what sort of subpoenas are involved. Donwill has provided little information. Anything is possible.

 

[LdiJ]

We have NO idea what sort of subpoenas are involved. Donwill has provided little information. Anything is possible.

Clearly federal subpoenas are not involved since IL went to IN for help.

 

[quincy]

Clearly federal subpoenas are not involved since IL went to IN for help.

There is little that is clear .. but please explain why you think there is clarity.

 

[LdiJ]

There is little that is clear .. but please explain why you think there is clarity.

IL would not need any help from IN if it were a federal case. You KNOW that.

 

[quincy]

IL would not need any help from IN if it were a federal case. You KNOW that.

That is not necessarily true.

 

[Taxing Matters]

We have NO idea what sort of subpoenas are involved. Donwill has provided little information. Anything is possible.

Well not quite anything. If this is a federal court criminal prosecution then the prosecutors will be issuing federal court subpoenas and would not resort to the use of state courts. As F. R. Crim. P. 17(e) makes clear, the a federal court subpoena for appearance at trial may be served on the witness anywhere in the country. As a result I think it is extremely unlikely that this is a federal prosecution given the OP's emphasis on the states involved, though I agree more clarity on the facts would be nice. In any event, my goal was to make clear to the OP that the federal rules do not apply unless it is a U.S. district (federal) court subpoena.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I live in Indiana and I was served papers from Illinois to appear in court to testify as a character witness. I asked the prosecutor many times do I have to show up she was very adamant in saying that she had jurisdiction over me. So I went to court and it was rescheduled. Afterwards I found out that she in fact had no jurisdiction over me and I was irate for being lied to, among putting so many things aside to appear in court in Illinois. I've recieved 2 other Illinois subpoenas since then and ignored them but now they got Indiana in it...Is there something I can do?

What do you mean by the bolded "but now they got Indiana in it"? Have you received a subpoena from an Indiana court? If so, it's probably best you obey it.

The prosecutor's statement that she had jurisdiction over you may be a violation of Rule 4.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. You may want to contact the Illinois Bar.

 

[quincy]

What do you mean by the bolded "but now they got Indiana in it"? Have you received a subpoena from an Indiana court? If so, it's probably best you obey it.

The prosecutor's statement that she had jurisdiction over you may be a violation of Rule 4.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. You may want to contact the Illinois Bar.

It may not be personal jurisdiction of which the prosecutor spoke.

I would like Donwill to return to enlighten us on the type of legal proceeding to which he has been subpoenaed.

 

[Litigator22]

Yes it does. And Illinois courts can have jurisdiction over out of state residents.

For the record:

There are procedures under certain state-adopted Uniform Acts whereby an out-of-state witness can be compelled to attend a deposition to be conduced in the witness's state of residence for use in a foreign state court proceeding. *

However, a state court's subpoena power does not extend beyond the state's geographic boundaries! (As often stated they have no extraterritorial effect, per se; much like state court writs and warrants.)

Hence, and it is a fundamental principle of American Jurisprudence that a non-resident CANNOT be compelled by subpoena to appear in a foreign state court.

The authority for that statement (inverse authority if you will) rests with very necessity of enacting the Uniform Acts!

______________

* Illinois Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (IDDA) and the same as codified at Indiana Code 34-44.5

http://interstatedeposition.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/overview.pdf