U.S. v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as: 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y.
Decision Date | 18 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 659,D,659 |
Citation | 55 F.3d 78 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND PREMISES KNOWN AS: 4003-4005 5TH AVE., BROOKLYN, NY, Certain Real Property and Premises Known as: 5014 3rd Ave., Brooklyn, NY, Certain Real Property and Premises Known as: 314 39th St., Brooklyn, NY, Defendants, Maria V. Mendez & Juan A. Tapia, Claimants-Appellants, James W. Poirer, Claimant. ocket 94-6149. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Arthur P. Hui, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, NY (Zachary W. Carter, U.S. Atty. E.D.N.Y., Deborah B. Zwany, Asst. U.S. Atty.), for plaintiff-appellee.
Albert Brackley, Brooklyn, NY, for claimant-appellant Tapia-Ortiz.
Before: WALKER, JACOBS, and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
Forfeiture proceedings, because they permit the Government in a civil action to seize property linked with criminal activities, often raise troublesome legal issues. In defending this civil action to confiscate his property after being convicted on federal narcotics charges, Juan A. Tapia-Ortiz created just such a troublesome issue when he attempted to withdraw a prior invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Tapia-Ortiz twice invoked the privilege in refusing to answer the Government's interrogatories early in this forfeiture proceeding. After the Government moved for summary judgment, Tapia-Ortiz asked to withdraw his assertion of the Fifth Amendment and sought to respond to the Government's contentions. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Thomas C. Platt, Chief Judge) held that it was too late for Tapia-Ortiz to withdraw his prior Fifth Amendment claim, and ruled that he could not submit any material previously asserted to be within his privilege against self-incrimination. Since Tapia-Ortiz did not put forth any other evidence, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Government.
On appeal, Tapia-Ortiz claims that he should have been allowed to withdraw his assertion of the Fifth Amendment in order to submit an affidavit that would have created an issue of material fact. Because courts must take care not to punish valid invocations of the privilege against self-incrimination and must try to accommodate those who would properly seek to claim the privilege, a prior assertion of the Fifth Amendment does not preclude a litigant's later attempt to submit evidence. Nevertheless, because the law cannot permit abuses of the privilege and because trial courts must have broad discretion to control and fashion remedies in the discovery process, we conclude that, on the facts of this case, the District Court did not exceed its discretion when it barred Tapia-Ortiz from testifying as to matters covered by his prior Fifth Amendment claim. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Government.
Tapia-Ortiz and a co-defendant were convicted in February 1992 for conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine and for possessing, with an intent to distribute, the same drugs. The evidence presented in their criminal trial indicated that Tapia-Ortiz and his co-defendant had imported cocaine from Florida and had sold and distributed heroin in New York. Much of this evidence came from a cooperating witness, Hector Hernandez, who claimed to have bought narcotics from Tapia-Ortiz many times at various locations. Tapia-Ortiz was initially sentenced in July 1992; a subsequent hearing led to his resentencing on July 9, 1993. On appeal, this Court affirmed Tapia-Ortiz's conviction, but his sentence was vacated and remanded. See United States v. Tapia-Ortiz, 23 F.3d 738 (2d Cir.1994).
In March of 1992, during these criminal proceedings, the Government began the instant in rem action, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 981(a) and 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a), seeking civil forfeiture of the defendant property located at 4003-4005 Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Subsequently, in May 1992, the Government filed an amended complaint and served Tapia-Ortiz with a first set of interrogatories. Tapia-Ortiz filed a Notice of Claim as the owner of the defendant property in June 1992, but completely failed to answer the Government's amended complaint or its first set of interrogatories. In September 1992, the Government served another set of interrogatories upon Tapia-Ortiz, who again did not respond. Finally, in January 1993, Magistrate Judge Michael L. Orenstein ordered Tapia-Ortiz to reply within twenty days.
Tapia-Ortiz submitted an initial set of answers in February 1993, but asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege as his only response to those questions concerning narcotics trafficking activities. After the Government complained about other, unrelated deficiencies in these initial replies, Magistrate Judge Orenstein ordered Tapia-Ortiz to make a further answer. In his supplemental responses, Tapia-Ortiz again invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions that related to narcotics trafficking.
The Government scheduled a summary-judgment conference in September 1993, and asserted, in its statement supporting summary judgment, that the defendant property was used in aid of the commission of narcotics crimes. The Government also noted that Tapia-Ortiz had invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to discovery inquiries about his narcotics trafficking activities. In his counter-statement, Tapia-Ortiz disputed that the defendant property was used to facilitate narcotics trafficking crimes. He also indicated that he was in the process of revising his interrogatory responses and that he now would like to withdraw his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
The District Court concluded that "Tapia-Ortiz may not invoke his privilege against self-incrimination to hinder the government's discovery efforts and then seek to waive or deny the existence of the privilege on the eve of trial or equivalent thereof." It therefore refused Tapia-Ortiz's request to withdraw the privilege and ruled that Tapia-Ortiz was not to "be permitted to oppose the government's summary judgment motion with any material previously claimed to be within [his] Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." United States v. 4003-4005 Fifth Avenue, 840 F.Supp. 6, 7-8 (E.D.N.Y.1993). Because Tapia-Ortiz thereafter "failed to produce any evidence by way of documents, testimony or affidavits to support his claim that the property was not used as alleged," the District Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment, holding that "no issue of fact exists and the government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." United States v. 4003-4005 Fifth Avenue, 855 F.Supp. 50, 54-55 (E.D.N.Y.1994).
While the Fifth Amendment states only that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," U.S. Const. amend. V, there is no question that an individual is entitled to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination during a civil proceeding. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.Ct. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973) ( ). And this means that a civil litigant may legitimately use the Fifth Amendment to avoid having to answer inquiries during any phase of the discovery process. See 8 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2018, at 273 (2d ed. 1994) [hereafter Wright, Federal Practice ] .
Though constitutionally protected, a civil litigant's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination during the discovery process is far from costless. It will, for example, always disadvantage opposing parties--at least to some extent--since it keeps them from obtaining information they could otherwise get. See SEC v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir.1994) (). Nevertheless, because litigants do not have a right to discovery of privileged matters, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b), such litigants, even if deprived of key facts through an opposing party's assertion of the Fifth Amendment, often have no recourse in the civil litigation other than to comment upon the claim of privilege in the hope of persuading At the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walters v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases)
... ... Water Crisis, the events of which are well known and have been well documented. See, e.g. , In ... have repeatedly affirmed their "almost certain[ ]" intention to subpoena appellants to testify ... 1969. III. The merits of this appeal require us to confront an issue of first impression: whether ... protected only when they are subject "to a real danger of further crimination." Rogers , 340 ... Certain Real Prop. & Premises Known as 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y. , 55 ... ...
-
S.E.C. v. Softpoint, Inc.
... ... United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known As 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y., 55 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir.1995) ... ...
-
United States v. Sachakov
... ... Department of Justice, Brooklyn, NY, Laura D. Mantell, United States Attorney's ... It requires courts to exclude certain periods of time from the seventy day period, ... Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 4003–4005 5th ... ...
-
Favourite v. 55 Halley St., Inc.
... ... , Elefante & Persanis, LLP, Eastchester, NY, for Plaintiff. Jonathan Kolbrener, Braverman ... employee for Prime Locations, Inc., the property manager of the building at the time, sent ... lease and to evict Plaintiff from the premises. (Currenti Aff. Ex. 8, at 5.) On October 26, ... demonstrate that the discrimination was the real reason for the defendant's unlawful action. Id ... Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 40034005 5th Ave. , 55 F.3d 78, 8283 (2d Cir.1995) ; Adelphia ... ...
-
Privilege and work product
...owns on Fifth Amendment grounds, he cannot testify at trial that he owns a red station wagon. But cf. United States v. 4003-4005 5th Ave. , 55 F.3d 78, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1995) (invocation of privilege may be withdrawn if no undue prejudice to opposing party). e. A party with Fifth Amendment co......
-
Table of Cases
...States v. Ceglia, No. 12-CR-876 (VSB), 2015 WL 1499194 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2015), 92 United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises, 55 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1995), 170 United States v. Cervantes, 646 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2011), 8 342 Antitrust Evidence Handbook United States v. Chabot, 2015-......
-
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
...may adopt remedial measures to prevent prejudice to opposing parties. See, e.g., United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises, 55 F.3d 78, 85-86 (2d Cir. 1995) (trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to allow defendant to recant assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege at ple......
-
Privilege and work product
...owns on Fifth Amendment grounds, he cannot testify at trial that he owns a red station wagon. But cf. United States v. 4003-4005 5th Ave. , 55 F.3d 78, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1995) (invocation of privilege may be withdrawn if no undue prejudice to opposing party). e. A party with Fifth Amendment co......