Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 17
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule incorporates the 2008 amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(3). The phrase "personal or confidential information" will continue to be developed through case law. See, e.g., Brown v. United States , 567 A.2d 426 (D.C. 1989). Also, as explained in the Federal Advisory Committee Note to the 2008 amendment:
The rule recognizes [ ] that there may be exceptional circumstances in which th[e] procedure may not be appropriate. Such exceptional circumstances would include evidence that might be lost or destroyed if the subpoena were delayed or a situation where the defense would be unfairly prejudiced by premature disclosure of a sensitive defense strategy. The Committee leaves to the judgment of the court a determination as to whether the judge will permit the question whether such exceptional circumstances exist to be decided ex parte and authorize service of the third-party subpoena without notice to anyone.
Finally, while the Federal Advisory Committee Note to the 2008 amendment specifically indicates that subsection (c)(3) does not apply to grand jury subpoenas, the question of whether the subsection applies to certain grand jury subpoenas in the District of Columbia is still unanswered. See, e.g., Brown, 567 A.2d at 428-429 (cautioning that the court could "think of no rational basis upon which to distinguish subpoenas issued at the behest of a grand jury from [its] holding" that judicial authorization was required prior to issuance of a subpoena for medical records).
COMMENT TO 2016 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been redrafted to conform to the general restyling of the federal rules in 2002. It differs from the federal rule in several respects.
Paragraph (b) provides the local procedures, retained from the former rule, by which defendants who have previously qualified for Criminal Justice Act representation may obtain subpoenas issued in blank without having to file an ex parte application for waiver of the witness fee. This procedure is available only when the witness to be subpoenaed is within a 25-mile radius of the place of the hearing or trial. This paragraph has been restyled to make it more easily understood. No substantive changes are intended.
Subparagraph (c)(1) adds "data" to the list of matters that may be subpoenaed, consistent with the federal rule.
Paragraph (d) retains the phrase "the prosecuting authority" from the former Superior Court rule. It also retains the phrase "a defendant unable to pay" to reflect the requirements of D.C. Code § 23-106 (2012 Repl.).
Subparagraph (e)(2) substitutes "judge or magistrate judge" for "judge of the court."
Paragraph (g) retains the language of the former Superior Court rule. The federal rule draws distinctions based on federal law and practice that are not locally applicable.