United States v. Hubbell case brief summary
530 U.S. 27 (2000)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner United States prosecuted respondent for various crimes after he produced documents in response to a court order issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 6003(a). The order directed respondent to respond to a subpoena and granted him immunity to the extent allowed by law. The lower court had remanded for a hearing to establish petitioner's knowledge of respondent's financial affairs.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed because constitutional self-incrimination privilege applied to testimonial aspects of a response to a subpoena and petitioner had not shown any prior knowledge of documents respondent produced under subpoena.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
530 U.S. 27 (2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner United States challenged
judgment of United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
Circuit, which remanded for hearing on extent of petitioner's
independent knowledge of existence and authenticity of documents
respondent provided in response to subpoena that provided petitioner
with information that led to respondent's prosecution.CASE FACTS
Petitioner United States prosecuted respondent for various crimes after he produced documents in response to a court order issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 6003(a). The order directed respondent to respond to a subpoena and granted him immunity to the extent allowed by law. The lower court had remanded for a hearing to establish petitioner's knowledge of respondent's financial affairs.
DISCUSSION
- The appellate court concluded that respondent could not be compelled to produce the documents requested by petitioner without first receiving a grant of immunity under 18 U.S.C.S. § 6003 because such immunity was co-extensive with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
- The constitutional privilege applied to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena seeking discovery of the sources of potentially incriminating evidence and respondent's act of production had a testimonial aspect that entitled him to assert his self-incrimination privilege.
- Since petitioner did not show any prior knowledge of the documents respondent produced, those documents could not have provided the basis for respondent's indictment.
- Thus, the indictment was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed because constitutional self-incrimination privilege applied to testimonial aspects of a response to a subpoena and petitioner had not shown any prior knowledge of documents respondent produced under subpoena.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment