a reply to:
WeMustCare
Then there is this...........
Prosecutorial and Grand Jury Access to Presidential Documents
Recognizing that the “public has a right to every man's evidence,” the Court has held that the President may be required to testify or produce
documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by the courts.14 This principle dates to the earliest days of the Republic, when Chief Justice John
Marshall presided as the Circuit Justice for Virginia over the infamous treason trial of Aaron Burr. In that case, Chief Justice Marshall concluded
that President Thomas Jefferson could be subject to a subpoena to provide a document relevant to the trial.15 Specifically, he declared that, in
contrast to common law privileges afforded the King of England, the President was not “exempt from the general provisions of the constitution,”
like the Sixth Amendment, that provide for compulsory process for the defense.16 Nonetheless, Chief Justice Marshall recognized that while the
President could be subject to a criminal subpoena, the President could still withhold specific information from disclosure based on the existence of a
privilege.17 In the two centuries since the Burr trial, historical practice by the executive branch18 and Supreme Court rulings “unequivocally and
emphatically endorsed” Chief Justice Marshall's position that the President was subject to federal criminal process.19 In 2020, the Court extended
this precedent to the context of a state criminal proceeding, concluding that the President was not absolutely immune from state criminal
subpoenas.20
While the President is subject to criminal process, the question remains as to the limits on that process. The Court has recognized several
constraints on the ability of a prosecutor to obtain evidence from the President through the use of a criminal subpoena.21 First, like any citizen,
the President can challenge a particular subpoena on the grounds that it was issued in bad faith or was unduly broad.22 Second, the timing and scope
of criminal discovery must be informed by the nature of the office of the President—for example, granting deference in scheduling proceedings to
avoid significant interference with the President's official responsibilities.23 Third, the President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional
challenges, arguing that compliance with a particular subpoena would significantly interfere with his efforts to carry out an official duty.24 As the
Court first recognized in United States v. Nixon, one particularly notable constitutionally based challenge that a President can lodge against a
criminal subpoena is a claim of executive privilege in certain presidential communications.25
Presidential communications, the Nixon Court said, have “a presumptive privilege.” “The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government
and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” The operation of government is furthered by the protection accorded
communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their duties. “A President and those who
assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling
to express except privately.” The separation of powers basis derives from the conferral upon each of the branches of the Federal Government of
powers to be exercised by each of them in great measure independent of the other branches. The confidentiality of presidential conversations flows
then from the effectuation of enumerated powers.26 (Judge Wilkey concurring); Military Cold War Escalation and Speech Review Policies: Hearings Before
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 87th Congress, 2d Sess. (1962), 512 (Senator Stennis). See Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1975)
(en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911 (1976); United States v. Ehrlichman, 389 F. Supp. 95 (D.D.C. 1974).
However, the Court continued, the privilege is not absolute. The federal courts have the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express
and implied powers. Deference is owed the constitutional decisions of the other branches, but it is the function of the courts to exercise the
judicial power, “to say what the law is.” The Judicial Branch has the obligation to do justice in criminal prosecutions, which involves the
employment of an adversary system of criminal justice in which all the probative facts, save those clearly privileged, are to be made available. Thus,
although the President’s claim of privilege is entitled to deference, the courts must balance two sets of interests when the claim depends solely on
a broad, undifferentiated claim of confidentiality.
“In this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of presidential communications in performance of his
responsibilities against the inroads of such a privilege on the fair administration of criminal justice. The interest in preserving confidentiality is
weighty indeed and entitled to great respect. However we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the
infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal
prosecution.”
“On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the
guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts. A President’s acknowledged need for confidentiality in the
communications of his office is general in nature, whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding is
specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal case in the administration of justice. . . .”
www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 11-12-2023 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)