ARNDSTEIN
v.
MCCARTHY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
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 sought habeas corpus relief after being held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about his assets, claiming he invoked his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by filing sworn schedules in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court held that filing bankruptcy schedules does not waive the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and that the habeas corpus petition was sufficient, affirming its previous mandate requiring the trial court to issue the writ. The Court denied the trustee's petition for intervention and reargument, finding the constitutional issue plainly correct and any alleged record defects based on misconception.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum for the court by
Mr. Justice McReynolds.
The trustee in bankruptcy has filed an earnest petition asking that we (a) allow him to intervene, (b) permit reargument of the appeal, (c) direct that the entire record be certified to this court, (d) recall the mandate, (e) stay all proceedings in respect thereto, and (f) grant further and proper relief.
The court below heard the cause as upon demurrer and held the petition for habeas corpus insufficient. Disagreeing with the result we concluded that the bankrupt did not waive his constitutional privilege merely by filing sworn schedules, that the petition was adequate, and that the writ should have issued. The mandate only requires the trial court to accept our decision upon the point, of law., to issue the writ and then to proceed as usual. If the petition does not correctly set forth the facts, or if proper reasons' exist for holding the prisoner not shown by the petition peither our opinion nor mandate prevents them from being set up in the return and duly considered. Alleged defects in the record appear -to be based upon a misconception.
Our conclusion concerning the constitutional question presented, we think, is so plainly correct that a reargument would be unprofitable.
The petition is denied..
Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Doyle (S.D.N.Y. 1930)…d not raise his privilege during the course of his examination before the immigration inspector, but first invoked it on appeal. I think that the case of Amdstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71, 41 S. Ct. 26, 65 L. Ed. 138, further heard and reaffirmed, 254 U. S. 379, 41 S. Ct. 136, 65 L. Ed. 314, and McCarthy v. Amdstein, 262 U. S. 355, 43 S. Ct. 562, 67 L. Ed. 1023, are decisions which show that the government’s contention has already, in effect, been overruled. In the first of these cases, Amdstein v. McCart…1 / 4