MATTER OF HARRIS, BANKRUPT
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.
A bankrupt who made incriminating statements sought to prevent a bankruptcy receiver from accessing his books of account, claiming Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not protect a bankrupt from surrendering possession of property that no longer belongs to him, and that protective provisions allowing the bankrupt to object if the books were subpoenaed for criminal proceedings adequately safeguarded his constitutional rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case the District Court made an order that the bankrupt should deposit his books of account in the office of the receiver, there to remain in the custody of bankrupt; the latter to afford the receiver free opportunity to inspect the same, but the receiver to use and to permit theffi to be used only for the purpose of the civil administration of the estate and not for any criminal proceeding. It was ordered further that in case of subpoena or other process to the receiver for their production, he. should notify the bankrupt, to the end that the bankrupt might have an opportunity to raise the question of his constitutional privilege. The bankrupt petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals to revise the order. It appears that he made to a commercial agency a written statement of his assets and liabilities January 4, 1908, but he declined to testify concerning it, as it might tend to criminate him, several creditors having threatened him with prosecution for having obtained merchandise from them by that means. He also made oath that the books contained evidence that might tend to incriminate him; which was confirmed by an affidavit of his attorney. The receiver desired the books in order to ascertain what disposition was made of the assets alleged in the statement to the agency. On the other side the bankrupt was willing to allow an inspection if he could save his .right that the books should not be used against him in a criminal trial; but he excepted to the.order on the ground that no statute protected him from the knowledge gained from the books being used to find and get evidence that might be used against him in a criminal prosecution. He relied upon the Fifth Amendment and Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547. The Circuit Court of Appeals certifies the question whether ihe order was a proper exercise of the authority of the Bankruptcy Court.
If the order to the bankrupt, standing alone, infringed, his constitutional rights, it might be true that the provisions intended to save them would be inadequate and that nothing short of statutory immunity would suffice. But no constitutional rights are touched. The question is not of testimony but of surrender — not of compelling the bankrupt to be a witness against himself in a criminal case, present or future, but of compelling him to yield possession of property that he no longer is entitled to keep. If a trustee had been appointed, the title to the books would have vested in him by the express terms of § 70, and the bankrupt could not have withheld possession of. what he. no longer owned, on the ground that otherwise be might be punished. That is one of the misfortunes of bankruptcy if it follows crime. The right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself is not. a right to appropriate property that may tell one’s story.. As the bankruptcy court could have enforced title in favor of the trustee, it could enforce possession ad interim in favor of the receiver. § 2. In the properly careful provision to protect him from use of the books in aid of prosecution the bankrupt got all that he could ask. The question certified is answered
Fes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ited States v. Greenfield, 831 F. 3d 106, 116 (2d Cir. 2016). Where the foregone conclusion exception applies, “[t]he question is not of testimony but of surrender.” Fisher, 425 U.S. at 411, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (quoting In re Harris, 221 U.S.. 274, 279, 31 S.Ct. 557, 55 L.Ed. 732 (1911)). To know whether providing the passcode implies testimony that is a foregone conclusion, the relevant question is whether the State has established that it knows with reasonable particularity that the passcode exists, is withi…
-
State v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 510 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1987)…Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394 [31 S.Ct. 550, 55 L.Ed. 784] (1911); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 [64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542] (1944); Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 [94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678] (1974); In re Harris, supra [221 U.S. 274, 31 S.Ct. 557, 55 L.Ed. 73 (1911)]. Id. at 411-12, 96 S.Ct. at 1581-82 (emphasis supplied). In Doe, the Court addressed the issue “whether, and to what extent, the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination applies to the busin…
-
Garcia v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…e sum total of the Government’s information by conceding that he in fact has the papers. Under these circumstances by enforcement of the summons “no constitutional rights are touched. The question is not of testimony but of surrender.” In re Harris, 221 U.S. 274, 279, 31 S. Ct. 557, 558, 55 L.Ed. 2d 732, 735 (1911). Id. at 411 (internal citation omitted). To date, Fisher is the only United States Supreme Court decision to apply the foregone conclusion exception to compel testimony; however, contextually,…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (U.S. 1886)
- Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1892)
- Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1896)
- Babbitt in Bankruptcy v. Dutcher, 216 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1910)
- Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1904)