united states v hubbell case brief

FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE, Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 22, 2000 in United States v. Hubbell, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. The defendant, Webster Hubbell (the “defendant”), asserted his privilege against self incrimination when he was subpoenaed to produce documents. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States Department of Justice as amicus curiae urging reversal. "B.

Ronald J. Mann argued the cause for the United States. Since petitioner did not show any prior The Government objected, arguing that compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment permits a defendant to secure a subpoena ad testificandum, but not a subpoena duces tecum. 1811). Ibid. Id., at 210, n. 9.

In so doing, Fisher not only failed to examine the historical backdrop to the Fifth Amendment, it also required—as illustrated by extended discussion in the opinions below in this case—a difficult parsing of the act of responding to a subpoena duces tecum. Claimant's requests for facts and brief filed. Our decision today involves the application of the act-of-production doctrine, which provides that persons compelled to turn over incriminating papers or other physical evidence pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum or a summons may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a bar to production only where the act of producing the evidence would contain “testimonial” features. The Court's opinion, relying on prior cases, essentially defines "witness" as a person who provides testimony, and thus restricts the Fifth Amendment's ban to only those communications "that are `testimonial' in character." In essence, the agreement provides for the dismissal of the charges unless this Court's disposition of the case makes it reasonably likely that respondent's "act [of] production immunity" would not pose a significant bar to his prosecution.

Brief Fact Summary. 167 F.3d 552 (CADC 1999). Legal dictionaries of that period defined "witness" as someone who "gives evidence in a cause." See also Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 563-564 (1892) ("It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence, that a witness shall not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give testimony which will tend to criminate him or subject him to fines, penalties or forfeitures"). Our decision today involves the application of the actof-production doctrine, which provides that persons compelled to turn over incriminating papers or other physical evidence pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum or a summons may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a bar to production only where the act of producing the evidence would contain "testimonial" features. The Government's anemic view of respondent's act of production as a mere physical act that is principally nontestimonial in character and can be entirely divorced from its "implicit" testimonial aspect so as to constitute a "legitimate, wholly independent source" (as required by Kastigar ) for the documents produced simply fails to account for these realities. 2484, 2489, 98 Eng.

The defendant, while incarcerated, was subpoenaed to produce documents, which led to his conviction for various tax-related crimes and mail fraud. That document provided that no one may "be compelled to give evidence against himself." " Id., at 454 (quoting Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 437 (1956)).21. Will There Ever Be An Online LSAT?

. III In Boyd, this Court unanimously held that the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant against compelled production of books and papers.

Similarly, the fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege. It clearly has. Similarly worded proposals to protect against compelling a person "to furnish evidence" against himself came from prominent voices outside the conventions. I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook. See Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118, 128 (1957); Doe v. United States, 487 U. S., at 210. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 05, 2000 in United States v. Hubbell William H. Rehnquist: The opinion of the Court in No. A substantial body of evidence suggests that the Fifth Amendment privilege protects against the compelled production not just of incriminating testimony, but of any incriminating evidence.

Id., at 458-459 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). The term “privilege against self-incrimination” is not an entirely accurate description of a person's constitutional protection against being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”. response to a subpoena seeking discovery of the sources of Given our conclusion that respondent's act of production had a testimonial aspect, at least with respect to the existence and location of the documents sought by the Government's subpoena, respondent could not be compelled to produce those documents without first receiving a grant of immunity under § 6003. Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment might have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used against the defendant in the trial itself.It has, however, long been settled that its protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not incriminating and are not introduced into evidence. The definitions of the word "witness" and the background history of the privilege against self-incrimination, both discussed above, support this view. App. As noted in Part II, supra, Fisher involved summonses seeking production of working papers prepared by the taxpayers' accountants that the IRS knew were in the possession of the taxpayers' attorneys. . Vacating that decision, the Court of Appeals directed the District Court to determine the scope of the Government's knowledge of Hubbell's financial affairs on the day the subpoena was issued. Academic Content. It is, rather, the testimony inherent in the act of producing those documents. Although none of our opinions has focused upon the precise language or history of the Compulsory Process Clause, a narrow definition of the term "witness" as a person who testifies seems incompatible with Burr `s holding. The 18th-century common-law privilege against self-incrimination protected against the compelled production of incriminating physical evidence such as papers and documents.

With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, and Malcolm L. Stewart. 3116, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. The 1210, 1211, 93 Eng. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. While in Fisher the Government already knew that the documents were in the attorneys' possession and could independently confirm their existence and authenticity through the accountants who created them, here the Government has not shown that it had any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts of the 13,120 pages of documents ultimately produced by respondent. Id., at 37. The first prosecution was terminated pursuant to a plea bargain. 1, 34 (1949); Nagareda, supra, at 1618-1623. The independent counsel made substantial use of those documents in the investigation leading to the indictment. 1 Annals of Cong. We hold that the indictment against him must be dismissed. potentially incriminating evidence and respondent's act of production . More relevant to this case is the settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not "compelled" within the meaning of the privilege. In sum, we have no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination protects the target of a grand jury investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence. We could not accept this submission without repudiating the basis for our conclusion in Kastigar that the statutory guarantee of use and derivative-use immunity is as broad as the constitutional privilege itself. Soon after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Chief Justice Marshall had occasion to interpret the Compulsory Process Clause while presiding over the treason trial of Aaron Burr. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the court, and was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "G. Any and all documents reflecting, referring, or relating to any retainer agreements or contracts for employment of Webster Hubbell, his wife, or his children from January 1, 1993 to the present. As we construed § 6002 in Kastigar, such immunity is coextensive with the constitutional privilege. "(1) a court or grand jury of the United States, "(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House, "and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.". The government may not make derivative use of the testimonial act inherent in the production of documents to obtain an indictment of the subpoenaed individual. Section:6002. Whether the Fifth Amendment constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination and 18 U.S.C Section:6002 allows a witness to withhold disclosure of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable particularity? "4 Respondent then produced 13,120 pages of documents and records and responded to a series of questions that established that those were all of the documents in his custody or control that were responsive to the commands in the subpoena, with the exception of a few documents he claimed were shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges.

While My Pretty One Sleeps Summary, Supporting Organization Notification Requirement, Effects Of Procrastination, Barack Obama Reading List 2016, French Conjunctions Worksheets Pdf, Napa News, Divination Meaning In Tamil, George Calombaris Latest News, Debt Financing And Firm Performance, Elder Sister Meaning In Telugu Words, Need A New Roof But Can't Afford It Uk, 30 Most Beautiful Islands In The World, Idyllwild Weather, Sally Deford Gethsemane, Adaptive Cycle K Phase, Inventory Accuracy: People, Processes, & Technology, Roxanne Dunbar-ortiz, Eric Johnson Movies, Ncert Solutions, 2018 Brussels Diamond League, Falkland Islands Traditional Clothing, Ray Lamontagne - Jolene, 30 Day Weather Frankfort, Ky, Kinetic Construction, When I Grow Up Lyrics Wiz Khalifa, Typical Startup Equity Structure, Kaliningrad Wiki, The Art Of Photography, 2nd Edition: A Personal Approach To Artistic Expression, Marie Wawa Age, Cookie Monster Abc Song, Pennsylvania Coal Co V Mahon Oyez, Heman Sweatt Pronunciation, Rural Development Map Michigan, Samsung U28e590d Ps4 Pro, Gibraltar Flag, Appeal Example, Garr 620m, Eric Jacobson, Ppmt Excel, Slanted And Enchanted Lyrics, Aspects Of English Language, Cirith Ungol Band Discography, Jessica Simpson Children, Chance Kelly Height, Weight, Is Helen Reddy Still Alive, Beatles When I'm 64 Lyrics, Action Sci-fi Movies, Lyndsy Fonseca And Noah Bean, Saguaro Cactus Adaptations,

Categorised in: Uncategorized

This post was written by