Smith v. Richert case brief summary
35 F.3d 300 (1994)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner was convicted for failure to permit the examination of records after failing to produce records necessary to determine his Indiana adjusted gross income for the periods that he failed to pay taxes pursuant to a subpoena. Petitioner contended that the subpoena violated his U.S. Const.amend. V right against self-incrimination and filed an application for federal habeas corpus. The district court dismissed petitioner's application.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court held that while the documents sought by the subpoena were not required records within the scope of the Fifth Amendment, petitioner could have resisted the production of non-required records only if the act of production would have incriminated him, as by authenticating incriminating documents. The court held that production under petitioner's circumstances would have been testimonial and incriminating. The court reversed and remanded the district court's order because the records sought after were not required records.
OUTCOME
The court reversed and remanded the order from the district court that denied petitioner's application for federal habeas corpus, following his conviction for failure to permit the examination of records. The court held that the documents sought by the subpoena were not required records within the scope of the Fifth Amendment and that their production would have been testimonial and incriminating.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
35 F.3d 300 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner sought review of the order
from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, which denied his application for federal habeas corpus,
following his conviction for failure to permit the examination of
records.CASE FACTS
Petitioner was convicted for failure to permit the examination of records after failing to produce records necessary to determine his Indiana adjusted gross income for the periods that he failed to pay taxes pursuant to a subpoena. Petitioner contended that the subpoena violated his U.S. Const.amend. V right against self-incrimination and filed an application for federal habeas corpus. The district court dismissed petitioner's application.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court held that while the documents sought by the subpoena were not required records within the scope of the Fifth Amendment, petitioner could have resisted the production of non-required records only if the act of production would have incriminated him, as by authenticating incriminating documents. The court held that production under petitioner's circumstances would have been testimonial and incriminating. The court reversed and remanded the district court's order because the records sought after were not required records.
OUTCOME
The court reversed and remanded the order from the district court that denied petitioner's application for federal habeas corpus, following his conviction for failure to permit the examination of records. The court held that the documents sought by the subpoena were not required records within the scope of the Fifth Amendment and that their production would have been testimonial and incriminating.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment