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
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uUQTDtt6SVi2hAEsC7UPZ89Ki2wOQ8P0wofpdu3IKqDq0NnOX0h-Xow7l9rBFnaDl6S4J3-r8FLE0hm5ZoihAWa9EMMUB51o8p1rZqjizb38sUlVJlwzLhH-YNOyL5yj7cpJl0j0c49VjgpsCU7QxUU3zdtb8Ki-jzUE28J7yE6BNYQmWhF63VsKQcvLXR6F3TOnZMYmtc0PjCSAVhumST5F-Gkmk5EZK9pmhMMg6z74ubBQ1tnqkXoFSCxMn3h2U2H2LEBjAV8BeN=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_su1RUQBmVG3K0Jji0PdZounsMextP35QHKNmiUqqmfUcZKZXv_gU3RqKOI6ndVBBm7hhdLzk37HowT3oNMFoeGysej-NK9_RFl_xbYjK3Dutd-DsrApxL0XVJc4OBy87hz6AY3WwNXobyXMz_6G7uK5g0FbeNjSQrG2BHMt0BRvRqj7smVizCDFD0tx3-26Ayf92sIiQS394mujiNUaofGgixTntNSVKJ2Sy6Cw7kGxWp9_KLDnbpvihZxaQeJ0lozddgWoJph_Tg=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_smgY7JHJJQ-XW0PEfr7RGZ_9Q6BDTFOB9lDSYz4msvhhMiqScqRZvX7VJDBGc4epNqfk02m774tRasrAQM-1YUtYlG89ZWKIaYJQHgB-s0KF7khBlbpIekT8KvBjCUVmQXcSPraE2YI095K8oraCcelpbsuN1Wwvek0PUbGq35xnDeIMrQ56UAQzcohW10zS9M1PsuD69kFV-sTdegerwxSgRqmCLYwNflxJOTfBmhF2JUfrNJWpi1l8pAQOxXRavt8NabljShyTxI=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tc7IYMRg42V6Xoe9YVVz1Br3EbioD435DO7SE9KLiGG2BwxnBEguZqz_vlKFRldtqXLb_nhCvfCg2W-pn89Vf-IwVzrGoK8E7ra08gTAVcy5MrPuU-d0bC5kcD3gurZjyPOBhR8HNLsms8vfCyPoKw491NpYIAJKIdKAPULmMMCSg9k7OQ_r1b2_V-fnqmL7BkjkAqNlgayFJKr8NUbsG1xNYhYI4hCG5XXTM8dR-V7s20bhXeUtp17CXQaNJfVTHsS1DJuxRj2R6k=s0-d)
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