767 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1985), 85-4271, In re U.S. Grand Jury Proceedings

Docket Nº:85-4271.
Citation:767 F.2d 1131
Party Name:In re UNITED STATES GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, Juan A. CID, Witness. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Antonio CID-MOLINA, a/k/a Juan Cid, et al., Defendants, Juan A. CID, Appellant.
Case Date:July 30, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1131

767 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1985)

In re UNITED STATES GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, WESTERN DISTRICT

OF LOUISIANA, Juan A. CID, Witness.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.

Juan Antonio CID-MOLINA, a/k/a Juan Cid, et al., Defendants,

Juan A. CID, Appellant.

No. 85-4271.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

July 30, 1985

Page 1132

Douglas L. Williams, Miami, Fla., C. Michael Hill, Lafayette, La., for appellant.

Judith Lombardino, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lafayette, La., for the United States.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before RUBIN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges, and POLOZOLA [*], District Judge.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Juan A. Cid appeals the district court's denial of his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and the court's order that Cid comply with the subpoena by executing a consent, directed to "any bank or trust company at which I have a bank account," for the production of bank records. His principal objection is that the compulsion offends his Fifth Amendment privilege. We affirm.

Conceding that the bank records themselves would not be protected, Cid contends that the signing of this consent has testimonial consequences, in that "he would be confirming (through the medium of the intervention of the Court) that he had (1) created an account or accounts revealed by the 'Consent Directive' (2) at an off-shore bank, otherwise 'safe' from scrutiny by the Government of the United States, and (3) had engaged in whatever transactions the records of those accounts reflected." We disagree, because we see no disclosure, no admission and no inculpatory effect in the general language of this consent. 1

Page 1133

We follow the lead here of the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Ghidoni, 732 F.2d 814 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 328, 83 L.Ed.2d 264 (1984) and the Second Circuit in United States v. Davis, 767 F.2d 1025 (2d Cir. 1985). The same consent form was at issue in Ghidoni, and we agree with that court's reasoning, which needs no repetition or enlargement.

Cid also complains that the subpoena is an abuse of the grand jury process because its purpose is solely or principally to prepare the government for trial in two pending cases. The only support for this contention is the existence of two prior indictments, one in the same district...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP