In re Grand Jury Investigation, 73-1514.

Decision Date09 July 1973
Docket NumberNo. 73-1514.,73-1514.
Citation483 F.2d 961
PartiesIn re GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION and Isadore H. Bellis, a witness. Appeal of Isadore H. BELLIS.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Louis Lipschitz, Lipschitz & Danella, Leonard Sarner, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Peter F. Vira, Thomas A. Bergstrom, Sp. Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, for appellee.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and GIBBONS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Granted October 15, 1973. See 93 S.Ct. 233.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SEITZ, Chief Judge.

The district court found appellant in civil contempt and entered an appropriate order. Appellant appeals that order.

Appellant poses the following single issue:

Whether a partner of a three-man law partnership in the process of winding up after dissolution may invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to prevent the production, pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, of financial books and records of the partnership in his possession.

Appellant Bellis was served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena directing him to appear and testify and to bring with him "all partnership records currently in your possession for the partnership of Bellis, Kolsby & Wolf for the years 1968 and 1969." Appellant appeared and refused to produce the documents or answer any questions in connection therewith, asserting his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Thereupon, the United States filed a motion in the district court to compel the appellant to produce the books and records described in the subpoena. The issue is limited, at least at this stage, to the production of documents.

A hearing was held before the district court on the government's contempt motion. The appellant confined his claim to his Fifth Amendment privilege. The district court ruled, inter alia, that since the documents were partnership papers, they were not subject to appellant's personal privilege. He thereupon ordered appellant to comply with the subpoena. The court excluded from its order, "any individual client files containing any advice or confidential relationships between the attorney and attorney and client."

The appellant reappeared before the Grand Jury and on the advice of counsel repeated his refusal to produce the subpoenaed records, inter alia, on the same constitutional grounds. Thereupon the Government orally moved before the district court in the presence of appellant's counsel for a contempt order. Such an order was entered and this appeal followed.

Fortunately, the facts material to our disposition of this case are not in dispute. The subpoenaed documents are the partnership records of a three-man law partnership for the years 1968 and 1969. The partnership also had about six additional employees. Appellant was the senior partner and personally supervised the work of the bookkeeper. The partnership was dissolved in the latter part of 1969 and is still in the process of being wound up. After formal dissolution, the partnership records remained in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Director of Int. Rev.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 3, 1976
    ...361, 31 S. Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911); cf. Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974), aff'g 483 F.2d 961 (3d Cir. 1973). While a corporation's representative witness may assert a Fourth Amendment objection to the scope of a grand jury subpoena, Hale v. Hen......
  • Grand Jury Empanelled, Matter of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • February 14, 1978
    ...which have "a recognizable juridical existence apart from (their) members" and those which do not. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 483 F.2d 961, 962 (3d Cir. 1973), Aff'd Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974). An individual who holds records in a rep......
  • Bellis v. United States 8212 190
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1974
    ...or personal records.' United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 701, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1252, 88 L.Ed. 1542. Pp. 87—101. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 3 Cir., 483 F.2d 961, Leonard Sarner, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHA......
  • U.S. v. Fox, 1380
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 19, 1983
    ...such as sole proprietorships. In re Grand Jury Empanelled (Colucci), 597 F.2d 851, 859 (3d Cir.1979) (quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 483 F.2d 961, 962 (3d Cir.1973), aff'd, Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974)). Thus, an attorney who possesses ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT