Also known as: in-chief · examination in chief · case in chief
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An office and power vested in the President by the Constitution as head of the military forces of the United States. The authority includes direction of the Army and Navy when called into federal service and extends to related executive functions such as requesting written opinions from department heads.
An office and power vested in the President by the Constitution as head of the military forces of the United States. The authority includes direction of the Army and Navy when called into federal service and extends to related executive functions such as requesting written opinions from department heads.
During an ongoing conflict Congress has authorized, the President issues orders deploying naval forces to intercept enemy vessels approaching U.S. waters. The orders rest on the President's authority over the armed forces when they are in actual federal service.
The principal phase of a party's presentation of evidence at trial. Evidence offered during this phase must satisfy foundational requirements for admissibility and may be distinguished from evidence offered solely for impeachment.
After incomplete Miranda warnings, a defendant makes statements admitting involvement in a data breach. At trial the defendant testifies that he never accessed the rival system. The prosecution offers the earlier statements solely to show inconsistency with the trial testimony.
After indictment on theft charges, agents question the defendant without counsel present and obtain admissions. The government offers the statements during its main presentation of evidence to prove the theft. The court excludes them from that phase of the trial.
The principal phase of a party's presentation of evidence at trial. Evidence offered during this phase must satisfy foundational requirements for admissibility and may be distinguished from evidence offered solely for impeachment.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A shipowner challenges seizure of property inside U.S. territory at the start of hostilities. The government defends the seizure as an incident of the President's authority over military operations once forces are engaged.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseA former president faces a damages suit for actions taken while directing executive-branch personnel. The court examines whether the conduct fell within the unique constitutional responsibilities assigned to the office.
In January 1970 respondent A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force when his position was eliminated during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force. One year earlier, on November 13, 1968, Fitzgerald had testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee that cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane could approximate $2 billion. Concerned that the dismissal might constitute retaliation for the congressional testimony, the subcommittee held public hearings. At a December 8, 1969 news conference President Richard Nixon promised to look into the matter and directed White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman to arrange for Fitzgerald's reassignment to another administration position. An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield recommended that Fitzgerald "bleed, for a while at least" because of perceived disloyalty, and no further White House efforts to reemploy him occurred. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission alleging unlawful retaliation. The Examiner held that Fitzgerald's dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations based on a finding that the departmental reorganization was motivated by reasons purely personal to respondent. The Examiner recommended Fitzgerald's reappointment to his old position or to a job of comparable authority. The Commission explicitly found that the evidence did not support Fitzgerald's allegation of retaliation for his 1968 testimony. At a January 31, 1973 news conference President Nixon stated that he had approved Fitzgerald's dismissal. A day later the White House press office issued a retraction of the President's statement. In 1978 Fitzgerald filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia naming Nixon as a defendant and alleging violations of the First Amendment and two federal statutes. The District Court denied Nixon's motion for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the collateral appeal. Shortly after Nixon petitioned for certiorari the parties agreed that Nixon would pay Fitzgerald $142,000 immediately and an additional $28,000 if the Supreme Court ruled he was not entitled to absolute immunity.
View case1 common questions
Article II designates the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia when called into federal service. This authority operates when forces are engaged in actual United States service.
The prosecution introduces evidence of weapons found in a vehicle and relies on a statutory presumption to establish possession. The court instructs the jury on the presumption as part of the government's affirmative presentation of its case.
In March 1973, three adult male respondents and a sixteen-year-old girl were traveling in a Chevrolet on the New York State Thruway when the car was stopped for speeding. Police observed two loaded handguns weighing approximately six pounds in an open handbag on the front floor or seat beside the girl, who admitted the bag belonged to her. A machinegun and heroin were discovered in the trunk after it was pried open. The four were tried together in Ulster County Court for possession of the handguns and trunk items. The trial judge instructed the jury regarding the statutory presumption that the presence of firearms in the automobile constituted evidence of possession by all occupants. The jury found the three adult males guilty of handgun possession but acquitted everyone of the trunk charges. The convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals also affirmed. The respondents sought federal habeas corpus relief in the Southern District of New York. The district court granted the writ on the ground that the presumption could not support the convictions on these facts. The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of the writ, though on the basis that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the procedural and substantive issues raised by the lower federal courts' decisions.
View case2 common questions
Statements obtained without proper warnings are inadmissible to prove guilt during the prosecution's main presentation of evidence. The same statements remain available to impeach a defendant who testifies inconsistently, provided they were voluntary.
Sixth Amendment violations bar use of the statements during the prosecution's principal evidentiary presentation. The statements may still be used for impeachment if they were voluntary and the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver.
…subject matter of this common-law suit. At the trial petitioner adduced evidence upon the issue of negligence and rested his case in chief. Thereupon respondent, in support of its affirmative defense, adduced evidence tending to show (1) that its charter, issued under the Rural Electric Cooperative Act of South Carolina (S. C.…