context: Similarly, and with perhaps even closer parallels to the instant scenario, several courts have responded to claims of sovereign immunity from subpoenas asserted by third-party Indian tribes by recognizing judicial "discretion not to apply the [immunity] doctrine" -- which is "largely" a matter of "comity" -- if "it would conflict with more important federal interests, such as the constitutional rights of criminal defendants."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 675 F.3d 1100, 1105
citation_a.parenthetical: considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the "question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation," where no "competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery"
citation_a.sentence: Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: "I also conclude that the Court's interest in protecting Defendant's constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant."
citation_b.sentence: Alltel Commc’ns, LLC v. DeJordy, 675 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 2012) (considering tribal immunity claim and contrasting question in criminal context with the “question [of] whether the [sovereign immunity] doctrine applies to non-party subpoenas served in ... private civil litigation,” where no “competing federal interests are present other than the general benefits of discovery”); see also United States v. Juvenile Male 1, 431 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1016-19 (D. Ariz. 2006) (denying motion to quash criminal defendant’s subpoena because, court could not permit “tribe’s immunity from civil actions” to “interfere] with the defendant’s right to compulsory process”); United States v. Velarde, 40 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1316-17 (D.N.M. 1999) (“I also conclude that the Court’s interest in protecting Defendant’s constitutional rights justifies an intrusion upon tribal sovereignty in order to enforce a subpoena on behalf of Defendant.”), conviction vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Snowden, 879 F.Supp. 1054, 1057-58 (D. Or. 1995) (concluding that criminal defendant’s “constitutional rights of due process, fair trial, confrontation, and compulsory process outweigh [Indian tribe’s] claim of immunity” from defendant’s subpoena).