- 5 -
please bring copies of any rental agreement between you
and the lessor).
At the call of the calendar in San Francisco, California, on
October 21, 1996, at approximately 11:00 a.m., petitioner moved
to quash respondent's subpoena duces tecum on the ground that
"compliance therewith would interfere with his constitutional
rights, specifically his rights under the Fifth Amendment."
The Court informed the parties that the motion to quash would be
reviewed during the noon recess and that the Court would rule on
the motion late in the afternoon.
The case was recalled from the calendar at 4:20 p.m. on
October 21, 1996, at which time the Court informed the parties
that petitioner's motion to quash subpoena was denied. The Court
further informed the parties that the Court would read into the
record on the following day, October 22, 1996, at 3:00 p.m., the
reasons for denying the motion to quash, and the Court did so.
The Court ruled:
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination protects an individual from being
compelled to disclose information that could reasonably
be expected to furnish evidence needed to prosecute the
claimant for a crime; Kastiger v. United States, 406
U.S. 441 at page 445, 1972.
It therefore, applies only when the possibility of
self-incrimination is a real danger, not a remote and
speculative possibility; Zicarelli v. The New Jersey
State Commission of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 at page
478, 1972.
The claimant must be faced with substantial
hazards of incrimination from the information sought,
and:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011