U.S. v. Bodwell, 95-15987
Decision Date | 27 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 95-15987,95-15987 |
Citation | 66 F.3d 1000 |
Parties | 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7359, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,578 UNITED STATES of America; Blake Olson, Revenue Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Ronald L. BODWELL, Respondent-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mary M. French, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sacramento, CA, for respondent-appellant.
Gary R. Allen, Charles E. Brookhart, Alice L. Ronk, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for petitioners-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Ronald L. Bodwell appeals the district court's order holding him in civil contempt and imposing the sanction of imprisonment for failure to comply with an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summons under 26 U.S.C. Secs. 7602 and 7604.
Bodwell contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for failure to properly raise the claim in the summons enforcement proceedings without providing him with an opportunity to assert the privilege on a question-by-question basis or an in camera hearing on the merit of the claim. Bodwell also contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint counsel for him until late in the contempt proceedings or to consider a less coercive sanction such as a fine.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Antitrust Litigation, 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). We review the district court's civil contempt order for an abuse of discretion. Id. We vacate the district court's order and remand for an in camera hearing where Bodwell may assert his Fifth Amendment claim on a question-by-question basis, and for a determination on the merits of Bodwell's claim.
The Fifth Amendment "can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used." Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1656, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets, such as that sought in the summons here, might be used to establish criminal failure to file a tax return can support a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. See United States v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 555-56 (9th Cir.1984).
The district court, however, did not address whether Bodwell had a reasonable belief that information sought in the IRS summons here might be used in a criminal prosecution, or whether his claim has merit. Rather, the district court found, relying on United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 756-57, 103 S.Ct. 1548, 1552, 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983), and United States v. Brown, 918 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam), that "[because] Bodwell did not properly assert the privilege against self-incrimination at the enforcement stage, it is unavailable to him at the contempt stage ... Bodwell's blanket assertion of the privilege before the IRS revenue agent on July 19, 1993, was insufficient to preserve the constitutional issue."
Resolution of the issue of whether Bodwell was properly precluded from raising his Fifth Amendment claim in the civil contempt proceedings in the district court turns on whether Bodwell's Fifth Amendment claim was or could have been properly litigated in the earlier enforcement proceedings. In the enforcement proceedings, Bodwell, proceeding pro se, mentioned only in one pleading that "all rights under the Fifth Amendment apply." He did not make repeated blanket assertions of the privilege in the enforcement proceedings without offering any proof as to their merit, as the taxpayer in Brown did. Neither the district court nor this court ever addressed or ruled on Bodwell's claim of privilege in the enforcement proceedings. Thus, Bodwell's claim was not raised in the enforcement proceedings, and Brown does not preclude the district court's consideration of the claim in the contempt proceedings.
The next question is whether the Fifth Amendment claim could have been raised or properly litigated in the enforcement proceedings. See Rylander, 460 U.S. at 752, 103 S.Ct. at 1550. Bodwell was held in contempt for refusal to testify, rather than for refusal to produce documents as were the taxpayers in Rylander and Brown. The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis. Rendahl, 746 F.2d at 555, citing with approval United States v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, 42 (9th Cir.1971) ( ).
Bodwell, however, who was proceeding pro se, never had an opportunity to answer the questions in the IRS summons before or during the enforcement proceedings here. 1 Accordingly, Bodwell's claim could not have been raised and litigated properly in the enforcement proceedings. See Rylander, 460 U.S. at 752, 103 S.Ct. at 1550; see also United States v. Sharp, 920 F.2d 1167, 1170 (4th Cir.1990) ( ).
In this case, as in Rendahl, Bodwell presented his Fifth Amendment claim and made an offer of proof in the district court contempt proceedings. The district court's failure to consider the claim under these circumstances was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's contempt order and remand for an in camera hearing at which Bodwell shall be asked the questions in the summons on a question-by-question basis, and for a determination as to the merit of Bodwell's Fifth Amendment ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. Adams
... ... denied, 543 U.S. 892, 125 S.Ct. 102, 160 L.Ed.2d 156 (2004). Cf. United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995) (only way Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on ... ...
- Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.
-
State ex rel. Gibbons v. Smart, No. W2007-01768-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 10/8/2008)
...cannot raise for first time a defense that could have been raised during prior enforcement proceeding); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (whether defendant was properly precluded from raising Fifth Amendment claim in contempt proceedings turns on whe......
-
In re National Audit Defense Network
... ... See Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263; United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995); Jackson v. Microsoft Corp., 211 F.R.D. 423, 433 ... Id. § 112.150.7(d) ... 18. The term "Ponzi scheme" comes to us from Charles Ponzi, who operated a fraudulent investment scheme in the 1920s. See Cunningham v ... ...
-
Tax violations.
...asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory ..."); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (11th Cir. (28.) See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.......
-
Tax violations.
...asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory...."); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (stating that Fifth Amendment privilege can be invoked in any proceeding consistent with Kastigar); Unite......
-
TAX VIOLATIONS
...that the Fifth Amendment does not shield the contents of voluntarily produced documents from discovery). But see United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“A reasonable belief that information concerning income or assets . . . might be used to establish crim......
-
Tax violations.
...asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory...."); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (stating that Fifth Amendment privilege can be invoked in any proceeding consistent with Kastigar); Unite......