(1) An objective witness who has been arrested on the basis of a warrant of arrest issued under paragraph (a) shall be brought before a bailiff without undue delay. An important witness is a person who has facts about a case that could be useful to law enforcement investigators, but who did not participate in or knowingly contribute to the criminal activity. In this case, the men arrested – they were later released – used the same credit card used to buy plane tickets for some of the hijackers. « Important Cookie » means the language used by law enforcement authorities; Lawyers refer to such a person as a « subject. » Suspects (or « targets » as lawyers call them) are people suspected of involvement in criminal activity. A person`s status can change from important witness to suspect when information is revealed showing the person`s complicity in the crime. In this case, a person may be charged with complicity, which can make him or her just as legally culpable as the actual perpetrator. Law enforcement officers can detain people for a few hours without laying charges, but keeping someone in custody for a long period of time requires a formal charge. [Explanation: This is not true. Click here to view the current rules for the retention of material witnesses.] It is common for those interviewed as important witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement. For those who are reluctant to speak out, the threat of being charged as part of a conspiracy often makes this reluctance disappear.

During yesterday`s raids across the country, there were people apprehended in connection with the attacks who turned out to have problems with their immigration status. People who are in the U.S. illegally can be detained for long periods of time solely for immigration violations. See, for example: In re class action petition for habeas corpus on behalf of all important witnesses in the Western District of Texas, 612 F.Supp. 904 (W.D. Tex. 1985); United States v. Nai, 949 F.Supp.

42 (D.Mass. 1996); United States v. Aguilar-Tamayo, 300 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Lai Fa Chen, 214 F.R.D. 578 (Ed. 2003), all with illicit trafficking in aliens. Statistics from the United States Administrative Office of Courts show that an overwhelming majority of the main witness hearings conducted by judges of United States magistrates take place in judicial districts bordering Mexico: Unlike the request of a detained witness, a request by a government or defendant for the testimony of a witness must: have « extraordinary circumstances » and that the acceptance of the request is « in the interests of justice ». « F.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(1).41 Nevertheless, the fact that a witness is detained will often be heavily weighed, regardless of who requests the testimony.42 Circles seem divided as to whether the court, in accordance with local rules of procedure, can allow sua sponte statements in order to release a detained witness.43 In any event, whether such testimony can be introduced in subsequent criminal proceedings, depends on whether the defendant`s constitutional rights to confrontation and coercive trial have been taken into account.44 18 U.S.C. 3142 (b) (b): « The bailiff shall order the provisional release of the person upon personal acknowledgement or after signing a false unsecured security in an amount determined by the court, provided that the person does not commit a federal, state or local crime during the period of release, unless the bailiff determines that such release does not adequately ensure the person`s appearance as required, or endangers safety.

another person or the community »). This has led to controversy for several reasons. Primarily, critics believed that the government`s use of the substantive witness law to detain suspects was a circumvention of the U.S. Constitution`s Fourth Amendment, which provides criminal suspects with some protection that was apparently ignored during arrests of important witnesses after September 11. Second, legal critics have objected to the application of the substantive witness law to grand jury trials. Perhaps because the point seems too obvious to be disputed or debated, none of the federal cases reported appear to have satisfied the requirement of impracticability by providing evidence that a key witness who is a foreign national who is illegally in that country may be outside the scope of the court summons if his or her testimony is required. The number of foreign witnesses arrested and detained for trial in immigration proceedings suggests that the Government had no difficulty in meeting the impracticability requirement in such cases, see, for example, Torres-Ruiz v. United States District Court, 120 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Allie, 978 F.2d 1401 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v.

Nai, 949 F.Supp. 42 (D.Mass. 1996); United States v. Huang, 827 F.Supp. 945 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). See also Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 280-81 (1919) (« In the formation of our federal government, the inquisitorial function of the grand jury and the coercion of witnesses have been recognized as incidents of the judicial branch of the United States. Under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant was granted the right to a speedy trial and a public trial in all criminal proceedings, with a mandatory trial to obtain witnesses on his behalf.

The first judicial law regulated the manner in which evidence was presented by witnesses heard in the courts of the United States, and their duty to appear and testify was recognized. [The revised laws] contain provisions requiring witnesses in criminal proceedings to admit their appearance as witnesses and to keep them in detention if they do not recognize them. In all these provisions. It is clearly recognized that testimony and attendance before a court or grand jury to testify are public functions that every person under the jurisdiction of government is required to perform when properly summoned. The personal sacrifice involved is part of the individual`s necessary contribution to the well-being of the public. The duty, which is sometimes so onerous, [is] so necessary to the administration of justice in the forms and modes provided for by our system of government. »); VIII Wigmore on Evidence §§2190-2192 (3rd ed. 1940).

United States v Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 429 n.11 (. The intent of the rule is that any attorney (including a supervisor) working on a prosecution may have access to grand jury documents, at least during the conduct of criminal cases. 18 U.S.C. 3156(a)(1)(1)(« For purposes of sections 3141 through 3150 of this chapter – (1), the term « bailiff » means, unless otherwise specified, any person or court authorized under section 3041 of this title or the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure to detain or release a person prior to a trial or conviction or pending appeal in a United States court, and each judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia »). Section 3041 authorizes federal and state judges to issue arrest warrants and conduct bail proceedings in federal criminal cases. (1) If an important witness appears before a bailiff who has been arrested on the basis of a warrant of arrest issued under clause (a), the bailiff shall order the release or detention of that witness. A witness who has information indicating a fact that affects the substance of the case. In general, the information possessed by the important witness has strong probative value, and few, if any, other witnesses have the same information. Because of the importance of the testimony of a key witness, judges usually make every reasonable effort to ensure that these witnesses are available to testify.

For example, an extension may be granted if a key witness is not available. A warrant for the arrest of a witness with evidence of federal criminal proceedings may be issued by federal or state judges or judges.12 The Act applies to both potential grand jury witnesses and potential witnesses at trial.13 Section 3144 allows, prima facie, arrest at the request of a party to a criminal proceeding. In the case of a criminal trial, the government and the defendants can take advantage of section 3144.14 Availability is somewhat less clear in the case of grand jury trials. Literally, there are no parties to a grand jury investigation other than the grand jury.15 Moreover, even if a suspect is the target of a grand jury investigation, it seems unlikely that he or she will be considered a « party » in a grand jury trial.