| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | A special prosecutor issues a subpoena duces tecum to the president, equiring the production of all kinds of stuff, including tapes. The president asserts executive privilege. |
| Posture: | Dunno. |
| Issue: | Does separation of powers preclude judicial review of a president's claim of privilege? Even if not, does the privilege prevail over the subpoena? |
| Holding: | No, and no. |
| Rule: | The need for specific evidence in criminal trials trumps the general assertion of privilege. |
| Reasoning: | Those who expect public dissemination of their remarks might not be candid, and this could be harmful to the decisionmaking process. At the same time, though, there's no absolute unqualified presidential privilege for immunity under all circumstances. If there were unqualified presidential immunity, the role of the courts would be greatly impeded. |
| Dicta: | The twofold aim of criminal justice is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. (citing Berger). |