United States v. Kordel case brief summary
397 U.S. 1 (1970)
CASE FACTS
Respondents, corporate president and vice president, were convicted, along with their corporation, for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq. The court of appeals reversed respondents' convictions on the ground that the government's use of interrogatories to obtain evidence from respondents in a nearly contemporaneous civil proceeding violated their U.S. Const.amend. V privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that reversed respondents' convictions and remanded for further proceedings.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
397 U.S. 1 (1970)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The United States sought a writ of
certiorari to review a judgment from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed respondents'
convictions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21
U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq. The intermediate appellate court held
that the government's use of interrogatories in a simultaneous civil
proceeding violated respondents' privilege against self-incrimination
under U.S. Const. amend. V.CASE FACTS
Respondents, corporate president and vice president, were convicted, along with their corporation, for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq. The court of appeals reversed respondents' convictions on the ground that the government's use of interrogatories to obtain evidence from respondents in a nearly contemporaneous civil proceeding violated their U.S. Const.amend. V privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
DISCUSSION
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the appeals court's decision.
- The Court found that the record amply supported the trial court judge's determination that the government did not act in bad faith in filing the interrogatories.
- Further, respondent vice president who answered the interrogatories never invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and was not barred from asserting his privilege simply because the corporation had no privilege of its own or because the proceeding was civil rather than criminal in character.
- Finally, respondent president could not claim compulsory self-incrimination where he never answered any interrogatories nor asserted the privilege.
OUTCOME
The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that reversed respondents' convictions and remanded for further proceedings.
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