Grand Jury Proceedings, In re, 84-5235
| Decision Date | 14 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5235,84-5235 |
| Citation | 747 F.2d 1098 |
| Parties | 16 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1344 In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. Appeal of David MORGANSTERN and Fred Morganstern. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Shelby C. Kinkead, Jr. (argued), Bulleit, Kinkead, Irvin & Reinhardt, Lexington, Ky., for appellant.
Louis De Falaise, U.S. Atty., Barbara Edelman, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Lexington, Ky., for appellee.
Before MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges, and BALLANTINE, District Judge. *
This case is before this Court upon appellants' appeal from an order of the district court, which denied their motions to quash a subpoena duces tecum and to stay grand jury proceedings. Appellants, David Morganstern and Fred Morganstern, contend that under United States v. Doe, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984), compelled production of corporate and partnership records would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Upon consideration of the issue presented by this appeal we deny enforcement of the subpoena, reverse the district court's order, and remand the matter to the district court.
The facts of this case are not disputed. Appellants' attorney, Shelby Kinkead, was served with a subpoena duces tecum on January 11, 1984. That subpoena required the production of partnership and corporation records on January 17, 1984. On January 13, 1984, appellants moved to quash the subpoena, or, in the alternative, for a protective order. After a hearing on January 17, 1984, appellants' motion to quash, which was based upon three grounds (attorney-client privilege, Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and insufficient time to review), was denied by the district court through an order dated January 19, 1984. That order also granted appellants time to comply with appellee's requests--either sixty days or until the next grand jury meeting on March 20, 1984.
On March 14, 1984 appellants, again, moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum and also to stay the grand jury proceedings. This second motion to quash was based upon one ground: production of the records would violate appellants' Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as explained in United States v. Doe, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 79 L.Ed.2d 552. 1 After a hearing on March 16, 1984, and in an order dated March 19, 1984, the district court denied appellants' motions to quash and to stay. On March 20, 1984, however, this Court granted appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal.
In pertinent part, the Fifth Amendment states "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. Amend. V (emphasis added). The most recent case interpreting that amendment as it applies to a subpoena duces tecum is United States v. Doe, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 79 L.Ed.2d 552. In Doe, the respondent, the owner of several sole proprietorships, was served with five subpoenas during the course of a grand jury investigation. Respondent sought to quash the subpoenas. The district court granted respondent's motion to quash, except with respect to records legally required to be kept by or revealed to a public agency, for example, tax returns and W-2 forms. The court of appeals affirmed the district court while the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
In reversing, the Court held that the contents of business records were not privileged, because their creation was voluntary. --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1241-42, 79 L.Ed.2d at 558-59. Before stating that holding, however, the Court affirmatively noted and restated the language of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976). With regard to the notation, the Court said: "[a]s we noted in Fisher, the Fifth Amendment only protects the person asserting the privilege from compelled self-incrimination. Id., --- at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1241, 79 L.Ed.2d at 559 () (emphasis in original). With regard to its restatement, the Court said: "[a subpoena duces tecum] 'does not compel oral testimony; nor would it ordinarily compel ... [a restatement, repetition, or affirmation of] the truth of the contents of the documents sought.' " Id., --- at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1241, 79 L.Ed.2d at 559 (quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 409, 96 S.Ct. at 1580).
In affirmation, the Court held that the act of producing the records was privileged, because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Jury Matter, In re
...to speak, and it is the one issue which has led to conflicting determinations in other federal courts. See In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Morganstern, 747 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir.1984), vacated and listed in banc, 760 F.2d 670 (6th Cir.1985); Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465, 471 n. 9 (6th Cir.198......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings, In re, 84-5235
...that the appellants could not be required to produce the records in the absence of a grant of use immunity. In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Morganstern), 747 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir.1984). A majority of the judges in active service voted to rehear the case en banc, thus vacating the panel opinion ......
-
Two Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum (Jan. 28, 1985, and Undated), In re
...744 F.2d 338 (3d Cir.1984), vacated and reh'g granted (November 20, 1984; reargument heard May 6, 1985); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Morganstern), 747 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir.1984), reh'g granted (February 6, 1985; reargument heard June 14, 1985). Nothing in the panel decisions convinces us th......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings, In re, 84-5235
...to restore the case on the docket as a pending appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this Court, 747 F.2d 1098, is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplement......