DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a government brief, arguing against a defendant's claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. It cites numerous court cases (such as Boyd, Fisher, and Bryson) to establish that the act of production privilege for private papers has been limited and that the Fifth Amendment does not protect an individual from prosecution for perjury, even if testimony was improperly compelled. The core argument is that a citizen cannot lie to the government with impunity.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boyd |
Party in the cited case Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
|
|
| Fisher |
Party in the cited case Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
|
|
| Olivieri |
Party in the cited case United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
|
|
| Remington |
Party in the cited case United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953).
|
|
| Winter |
Party in the cited case United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965).
|
|
| Wong |
Party in the cited case United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 180 (1977).
|
|
| Bryson |
Party in the cited case Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72, 90 (1969).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases (e.g., Boyd v. United States).
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals that ruled on the Fifth Amendment's protection of private papers.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the Olivieri case was ...
|
Timeline (1 events)
1992-10-29
A Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum was dated, leading to a Second Circuit ruling on the Fifth Amendment.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the court in the cited case United States v. Olivieri.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"a compulsory production of the private books and papers . . . [also] is compelling . . . him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment."Source
— Boyd v. United States
(Cited by counsel as a proposition for the defendant's claim regarding act of production privilege.)
DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
Quote #1
"[s]everal aspects of the Boyd decision did not endure."Source
— Second Circuit
(A ruling from the Second Circuit noting that the precedent set in Boyd has been partially superseded.)
DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
Quote #2
"[E]ven if an individual’s perjured testimony is improperly procured because of government misconduct, that testimony may still be used to prosecute that defendant for perjury."Source
— United States v. Olivieri
(A statement clarifying that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against prosecution for perjury, even if the testimony was compelled.)
DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
Quote #3
"[P]erjury is not a permissible way of objecting to the Government’s questions. . . . Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to answer falsely."Source
— United States v. Wong
(A legal principle stating that a citizen cannot respond to government questions with falsehoods, even if the questions are incriminating.)
DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
Quote #4
"[I]t cannot be thought that as a general principle of our law a citizen has a privilege to answer fraudulently a question that the Government should not have asked. . . . A citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood."Source
— Bryson v. United States
(A ruling rejecting a challenge to a false statement prosecution, affirming that there is no privilege to lie to the government.)
DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,220 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 128 of 239
employer was required to warn her that it might produce the phone to the government, even
assuming arguendo that that employer’s actions were attributable to the government).
The defendant’s claim that her act of production privilege was somehow violated similarly
fails. Counsel cites Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) for the proposition that “a
compulsory production of the private books and papers . . . [also] is compelling . . . him to be a
witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment.” (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting
Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, the
Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that
are not business documents, and also noted that “[s]everal aspects of the Boyd decision did not
endure.” 1 F.3d at 90 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)).
Further, the Fifth Amendment does not protect against being compelled to speak and then
speaking falsely. “[E]ven if an individual’s perjured testimony is improperly procured because of
government misconduct, that testimony may still be used to prosecute that defendant for perjury.”
United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing United States v.
Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965));
see also United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 180 (1977) (“[P]erjury is not a permissible way of
objecting to the Government’s questions. . . . Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of
criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to
answer falsely.”); Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72, 90 (1969) (rejecting challenge to false
statement prosecution; “[I]t cannot be thought that as a general principle of our law a citizen has a
privilege to answer fraudulently a question that the Government should not have asked. . . . A
citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity
knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood.”).
assuming arguendo that that employer’s actions were attributable to the government).
The defendant’s claim that her act of production privilege was somehow violated similarly
fails. Counsel cites Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) for the proposition that “a
compulsory production of the private books and papers . . . [also] is compelling . . . him to be a
witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment.” (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting
Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, the
Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that
are not business documents, and also noted that “[s]everal aspects of the Boyd decision did not
endure.” 1 F.3d at 90 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)).
Further, the Fifth Amendment does not protect against being compelled to speak and then
speaking falsely. “[E]ven if an individual’s perjured testimony is improperly procured because of
government misconduct, that testimony may still be used to prosecute that defendant for perjury.”
United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing United States v.
Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965));
see also United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 180 (1977) (“[P]erjury is not a permissible way of
objecting to the Government’s questions. . . . Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of
criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to
answer falsely.”); Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72, 90 (1969) (rejecting challenge to false
statement prosecution; “[I]t cannot be thought that as a general principle of our law a citizen has a
privilege to answer fraudulently a question that the Government should not have asked. . . . A
citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity
knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood.”).
101
DOJ-OGR-00003062
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document