United States v. Karp, 79 Cr. 722.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79 Cr. 722.,79 Cr. 722. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Leo KARP et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff; Rhea Kemble Neugarten, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.
Charles Haydon, New York City, for defendant Rugen.
Kalman V. Gallop, New York City, for defendant Freilich.
The defendant is charged with conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service by creating fictitious business transactions to be used by other taxpayers. It is essential to the government's case to establish that these transactions were in fact fictitious. Among other things, the government will wish to prove that they are supported by no valid documentation. In this context, the government asks us to compel the defendant Karp to honor a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of all invoices and other documents defendant now has in his possession, which have been prepared by or received from third parties and which relate to the operation of defendant's business.
Citing Fisher v. United States (1975) 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39; United States v. Beattie (2d Cir. 1975) as modified (1976) 541 F.2d 329; and In the Matter of Special Grand Jury No. 1 (D.Md.1978) 465 F.Supp. 800; the government urges that since the documents in question would have been created by persons other than the defendant, and since they would therefore not be admissible in evidence unless authenticated by persons other than the defendant, the defendant cannot successfully invoke the Fifth Amendment to excuse him from producing them.
As we read the tea leaves, the Fifth Amendment is destined to be all but eliminated in the area of subpoena duces tecum unless such subpoenas are personally intrusive and call for the production of purely private documents such as diaries, personal letters, etc. However, this erosion has not, in our view, progressed to a point where we may compel the defendant to honor the present subpoena.
The crucial question in this case is: What would happen if the defendant should fail to produce the documents in the face of our order that he do so, and the government should then move to punish him for contempt? Assuming (as we actually believe to be the case) that the documents do not exist, the only way the defendant could avoid the risk of being jailed for contempt would be to assert their nonexistence, which is precisely the fact that the government wishes to establish at trial.1 This circumstance clearly distinguishes the authorities on which the government relies. For example, it was wholly immaterial to the prosecution involved in In the Matter of Special Grand Jury, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino, Matter of
...discerning the present state of the law surrounding the Fifth Amendment privilege as that of a "tea leaves" reader, United States v. Karp, 484 F.Supp. 157, 158 (S.D.N.Y.1980), while another judge has characterized his task as searching for "[t]he clues to [a] mystery...." In re Grand Jury S......
-
U.S. v. Sasser
...documents--infringed upon Sasser's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We conclude that it did. In United States v. Karp, 484 F.Supp. 157 (S.D.N.Y.1980), the court faced a similar issue. The government charged the defendant "with conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue ......
-
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS S. FEB. 27, 1984
...the present state of the law surrounding the fifth amendment privilege as that of a "tea leaves reader". United States v. Karp, 484 F.Supp. 157, 158 (S.D. N.Y.1980). With these preliminary comments, this court's discussion will now turn to the case at The two subpoenas at issue here raise e......
-
United States v. Fox
...466 F.Supp. 325, 326 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (existence of certain documents would "add everything" to government's case); United States v. Karp, 484 F.Supp. 157 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (witness may not be compelled to admit nonexistence of documents when that "is precisely the fact that the government wishe......