In re Grand Jury case brief summary
103 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir. 1997)
CASE FACTS
Appellant, the target of a grand jury investigation, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued to his daughter. In a separate case, another appellant, also the target of a grand jury investigation, attempted to quash a subpoena issued to his father. In both cases, the court declined to recognize a parent-child privilege and denied the motions.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgments that denied appellants' motions to quash subpoenas issued to family members and declined to recognize a parent-child privilege. The majority of courts rejected such a privilege, and a parent-child privilege failed to meet two prongs of the four-part test. Confidentiality was not essential to the relationship and any injury to the relationship based on non-recognition of the privilege would be insignificant.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
103 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir. 1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant, the target of a grand jury
investigation, sought review of judgment of the District Court of the
Virgin Islands that denied his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena
issued to his father. Another appellant, also the target of a grand
jury investigation, sought review of a judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of the Delaware that denied his
motion to quash a subpoena issued to his daughter.CASE FACTS
Appellant, the target of a grand jury investigation, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued to his daughter. In a separate case, another appellant, also the target of a grand jury investigation, attempted to quash a subpoena issued to his father. In both cases, the court declined to recognize a parent-child privilege and denied the motions.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed.
- The overwhelming majority of all courts, federal or state, rejected such a privilege.
- Reason and experience dictated that federal courts should refuse to recognize a privilege rejected by the vast majority of jurisdictions.
- In addition, such a privilege failed to meet two of the conditions under the four-factor formula to establish a privilege.
- Confidentiality was not essential to a successful parent-child relationship, and any injury to the parent-child relationship resulting from non-recognition of such a privilege would be relatively insignificant.
- The legislature, not the judiciary, was institutionally better equipped to perform the balancing of the competing policy issues required in deciding whether the recognition of a parent-child privilege was in the best interests of society.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgments that denied appellants' motions to quash subpoenas issued to family members and declined to recognize a parent-child privilege. The majority of courts rejected such a privilege, and a parent-child privilege failed to meet two prongs of the four-part test. Confidentiality was not essential to the relationship and any injury to the relationship based on non-recognition of the privilege would be insignificant.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment