Hale, a corporate officer, had been served with a subpoena ordering him to produce corporate Braswell v united states and to testify concerning certain corporate transactions. Since substantial evidence in the record Braswell v united states that under temporary authority Braswell had been using the Shayler rights to provide a new transcontinental traffic for which no public need was established, we also affirm the joinder restriction imposed by the Commission.
It is well settled that no privilege can be claimed by the custodian of corporate records, regardless of how small the corporation may be.
However, representatives of a collective entity act as agents, and the official records of the organization that are held by them in a representative rather than a personal capacity cannot be the subject of their personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally.
It follows, according to petitioner, that because Fisher recognizes that the act of production is potentially testimonial, such an act may not be compelled if it would tend to incriminate the representative personally.
The appellant, James Wade Braswell, was convicted in the trial court of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce after having previously been convicted of a crime of violence, in violation of 15 U. The Government explained at oral argument that it often chooses to designate an individual recipient, rather than the corporation generally, when it serves a subpoena because "[we] want the right to make that individual comply with the subpoena.
The Government may offer Braswell v united states - for example, from the process server who delivered the subpoena and from the individual who received the records - establishing that the corporation produced the records subpoenaed.
Appellant predicates error on the refusal of the trial court to give certain instructions. If the order is based upon adequate findings which are supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld even though we might reach a different conclusion on the facts presented.
Curcio appeared before the grand jury, stated that the books were not in his possession, and refused to answer any questions as to their whereabouts.
The wisdom and experience of the Commission, not of the Courts, must determine the matters involved on appeal. These questions perhaps do not lend themselves to categorical answers; their resolution may instead depend on the facts and circumstances of particular cases or classes thereof.
Both the girl and Braswell were arrested and taken into custody to the city jail. In appropriate cases the Government will be able to establish authenticity, possession, and control by means other than compelling assertions about them from a suspect.
Doe II, post, p. The majority does not challenge the assumption that compliance with the subpoena here would require acts of testimonial self-incrimination from Braswell; indeed, the Government itself made this assumption in submitting its argument.
Henkel, and extended in White and Bellis, remains valid. United States, F. It was also established independently of his admission that appellant had been previously convicted of a crime of violence. Braswell could not acquire greater authority by operating under this temporary permit than it was entitled to under the original application.
Chicago Heights Trucking Co. In a footnote, the Court explained: The corporations involved were incorporated by petitioner, who is the sole shareholder of one of them. In this case there was not an abuse of discretion. One subpoena required that he produce union books, the other that he testify.
In assuming their custody he has accepted the incident obligation to permit inspection. The next significant step in the development of the collective entity rule occurred in United States v. The phrase, "It shall be unlawful" in the statute is merely a method of proscribing the act of transporting a firearm under the enumerated conditions, and is not made an element of the offense itself.
The act of producing documents stands on an altogether different footing. We upheld the contempt order. Administrative Procedure Act, Section 8 a5 U. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. But there was no testimony by the defendant or any one else in the trial indicating that threats were used by the police officers in the apartment to gain the cooperation of appellant, or that the officers there questioned him concerning a Mann Act violation.
Rochester Telephone Corporation v. One does not always, however, have the choice of his or her employer, much less the choice of the business enterprise through which the employer conducts its business.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: Second, even if it were proper to invent such exceptions, the dangers prophesied by the majority are overstated. Testimony obtained pursuant to a grant of statutory use immunity may be used neither directly nor derivatively.
Second, in reliance on the findings of the District Court that production would be testimonial and self-incriminating, we upheld the claim that the act of producing these documents was privileged.
Read more about Quimbee. It also continues to be the rule, as we held in Wilson, that custodians of a collective entity are not permitted to claim a personal privilege with respect to the contents of entity records, although that rule now derives not from the unprotected status of collective entities but from the more rational principle, established by Fisher and Doe I and now [ U.
The ruling in Hale represented a limitation on the prior holding in Boyd v.Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, F. Supp. 98 (W.D. Tex. ) case opinion from the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume of the United States Reports: New York State Club Assn., Inc.
v. City of New York, U.S. 1 () Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., U.S. 22 (). Motions to Vacate Sentence case filed on April 21, in the Tennessee Western District Court. Braswell v. United States Introduction The Fifth Amendment of US Constitution provides a significant protection for accused persons.
In particular, the Fifth Amendment provides guarantees for due process, protection against double jeopardy and against the self-incrimination. My paper focuses on the guarantee against the self-incrimination.
A federal grand jury subpoenaed Randy Braswell (plaintiff), President of Worldwide Machinery Sales Inc. and Worldwide Purchasing Inc., for the production of books and records of both companies. ] braswell v. united states: an examination of a custodian's fifth amendment right to avoid personal production of corporate records i.