IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, TOM HERGENROEDER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a grand jury witness is not entitled to a government affidavit confirming the relevance of a requested exemplar.
Tom Hergenroeder refused to produce a handwriting exemplar requested by a grand jury, appealing a contempt order. He sought an affidavit from the gove…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Handwriting Exemplars cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Tom Hergenroeder appeals an order that he stand committed until he purges his contempt or until the adjournment of the grand jury which requested the handwriting exemplar he has refused to produce.
Faced with Supreme Court authority that he has neither a Fourth Amendment1 nor a Fifth Amendment2 right to refuse the exemplar, Hergenroeder claims a “supervisory-power” right to an affidavit from the government that the exemplar is relevant to an ongoing investigation by the grand jury, and is “not sought for some other purpose.” A case from another circuit appears to support this proposition. See In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Schofield) 486 F. 2d 85 (3rd Cir. 1973). In this circuit the supervision of the grand jury by the district court is more narrowly construed. United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1977).
In view of the presumption that the government obeys the law, we see no reason to inject into routine grand jury investigations the delay and imposition upon district courts that will be opened up by a rule institutionalizing these disclaiming affidavits.
An exculpatory affidavit from the government would not advance the administration of justice in this case. In Re Braughton, 520 F. 2d 765 (9th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, the judgment of contempt of court is affirmed. The mandate will issue now.
. United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 93 S.Ct. 774, 35 L.Ed.2d 99 (1973).
. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
In re Special Grand Jury NO. 81-1 (Leon D. Harvey), 676 F.2d 1005 (4th Cir. 1982)
-
In re Grand Jury Proceeding. Stephen W. Schofield and North Shore Porsche and Volkswagen Repair v. United States, 721 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
In re Grand Jury Subpoena For: William Lathan Osterhoudt v. United States, 722 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1973)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings. In re Jacqueline Schofield, 486 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1977)
- In re Braughton v. Braughton, 520 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1975)