DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
706 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
706 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 125 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, discusses the application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the act of producing documents. It cites several legal precedents to argue that the privilege only applies when the act of production itself is testimonial and incriminating, not merely because the documents' contents are incriminating. The document further asserts that the Fifth Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individuals from governmental coercion, not from other moral or psychological pressures.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fisher |
Party in the cited case 'Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976)'.
|
|
| Madanes |
Party in the cited case 'Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)'.
|
|
| Connelly |
Party in the cited case 'Connelly, 479 U.S. at 170'.
|
|
| Elstad |
Party in the cited case 'Elstad, 470 U.S. at 305'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Referenced as the court in multiple case citations (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Referenced as the court in multiple case citations (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York).
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its information and the scope of the Fifth Amendment's concern with governmental coercion.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00003059' (Department of Justice).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case name 'Fisher v. United States'.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"prohibits the compelled disclosure of documents when the act of production has independent communicative aspects—such as an admission that the documents exist, that the subject possesses or controls the documents, that the documents are authentic, or that the subject believes the documents are responsive to the subpoena."Source
— In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas
(Describing the limits of the Fifth Amendment privilege regarding document production.)
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]he existence and location of the [sought] papers are a foregone conclusion and the [compelled individual] adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information by conceding that he in fact has the papers."Source
— Fisher v. United States
(Explaining a situation where the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to the act of producing documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
Quote #2
"[E]ven if documents contain incriminating information, requiring a person to produce them does not implicate the Fifth Amendment unless the act of production is itself testimonial in nature and incriminating to the person making the disclosure."Source
— Madanes v. Madanes
(Clarifying that the incriminating nature of a document's contents is distinct from the incriminating nature of the act of producing it.)
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]he sole concern of the Fifth Amendment . . . is governmental coercion."Source
— Connelly
(Defining the primary focus of the Fifth Amendment's protections.)
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
Quote #4
"[T]he Fifth Amendment privilege is not concerned ‘with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.’"Source
— Connelly (quoting Elstad)
(Distinguishing between official government coercion and other forms of pressure to confess.)
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,041 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 125 of 239
to produce documents, the contents of which are not privileged, where the act of production is, itself, (1) compelled, (2) testimonial, and (3) incriminating.” In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 1999).
Consistent with these requirements, the privilege only “prohibits the compelled disclosure of documents when the act of production has independent communicative aspects—such as an admission that the documents exist, that the subject possesses or controls the documents, that the documents are authentic, or that the subject believes the documents are responsive to the subpoena.” In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas, 924 F. Supp. 2d 549, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d, 579 F. App’x 37 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). It follows that the privilege does not apply when “[t]he existence and location of the [sought] papers are a foregone conclusion and the [compelled individual] adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information by conceding that he in fact has the papers.” Id. at 411; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“[E]ven if documents contain incriminating information, requiring a person to produce them does not implicate the Fifth Amendment unless the act of production is itself testimonial in nature and incriminating to the person making the disclosure.”).
iii. The Fifth Amendment – When Private Action Is Deemed Government Action
As discussed above, “[t]he sole concern of the Fifth Amendment . . . is governmental coercion.” Connelly, 479 U.S. at 170. “[T]he Fifth Amendment privilege is not concerned ‘with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.’” Id. (quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 305). For this reason, even “[t]he most outrageous
98
DOJ-OGR-00003059
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document