In Re Letter of Request from Crown Prosecution Service of United Kingdom

Appellant, Thomas J. Ward, appealed a district court decision appointing commissioners to obtain evidence sought by the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom (Crown Service). The district court had appointed the commissioners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 (1982), to depose in the United States certain third-party witnesses with knowledge relevant to a criminal investigation in the United Kingdom. On review, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Ginsburg, J.) affirmed the district court’s decision and held: that 28 U.S.C. §1782 authorized the appointment of the commissioners, even though there was no pending criminal proceeding in the United Kingdom when the depositions were requested and the procedure for the depositions might vary from that normally applicable in the United States. The court remanded the case, however, for a further determination to ensure that the depositions would comply with procedural rules applicable in the United Kingdom.

Download Full-text

Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203519 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 82 (4) ◽

pp. 828-830

Author(s):

Edward M. Leigh

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Saudi Arabia ◽

Direct Effect ◽

District Of Columbia ◽

The United States ◽

Telephone Call ◽

District Court ◽

Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

American Citizen

Plaintiff Zedan, an American citizen, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for breach of a contract guaranteeing wages and profits. While performance under the contract occurred in Saudi Arabia, plaintiff alleged that the jurisdictional requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) were satisfied by a recruitment call in California from a representative of the royal overseer of a private Saudi company. The district court granted the Saudi motion to dismiss. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Silberman, J.) unanimously affirmed and held: (1) that the telephone call did not have the requisite substantiality of contact with the United States; (2) that it was not sufficient to form the basis of a cause of action; and (3) that the alleged breach did not have sufficient direct effect in the United States to satisfy the exceptions to immunity under the FSIA.

Download Full-text

United States v. Biermann

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2202797 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (1) ◽

pp. 99-103 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Bonnie Weinstein

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

United Kingdom ◽

The United States ◽

Coast Guard ◽

District Court ◽

Search And Seizure ◽

Federal Republic Of Germany ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

Northern District ◽

The Uk

Defendants, citizens of the United Kingdom, Bermuda, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, were operators of a sailing vessel on the high seas that was registered in the United Kingdom and flying the UK flag. Defendants were indicted for possession of several tons of marijuana, with intent to distribute, following a search and seizure of their vessel by the United States Coast Guard. Initially, the court granted defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing. However, upon further consideration, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (per Legge, J.) held: that the court had proper jurisdiction, and that defendants’ motions to suppress evidence obtained from the boarding, search and seizure of the vessel and to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be denied.

Download Full-text