Cobbledick et al. v. United States
309 U.S. 323 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order denying a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum for a grand jury proceeding is not a "final decision" and is therefore not immediately appealable. To obtain appellate review, the witness must refuse to comply with the order, be held in contempt of court, and then appeal the contempt judgment.
Facts:
- A United States grand jury was convened in the Northern District of California during its July 1939 term.
- The grand jury was conducting a criminal investigation.
- As part of its investigation, the grand jury issued subpoenas duces tecum to the petitioners.
- The subpoenas directed the petitioners to appear before the grand jury and produce specified documents.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners were served with subpoenas duces tecum to appear before a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Petitioners filed motions in the district court to quash the subpoenas.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, denied the motions to quash.
- Petitioners, as appellants, appealed the district court's denial to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a "final decision."
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict with a decision from the Second Circuit on the same issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court order denying a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, which directs a witness to appear and produce documents before a grand jury, constitute a "final decision" that is immediately appealable under § 128(a) of the Judicial Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frankfurter
No. An order denying a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum is an interlocutory order, not a final decision, and is therefore not immediately appealable. The long-standing federal policy against piecemeal litigation requires that a party wait for a final judgment before appealing. This policy is especially critical in the administration of criminal justice to prevent delays that would obstruct grand jury investigations and trials. Citing Alexander v. United States, the Court reasoned that a witness is not left without a remedy; to obtain appellate review, the witness must refuse to obey the subpoena, be adjudicated in contempt of court, and then appeal the final judgment of contempt. The contempt judgment is a separate, final proceeding personal to the witness, and an appeal from it provides adequate protection for the witness's rights without unduly impeding the progress of the underlying case. The Court distinguished cases where immediate appeals were allowed, such as in Perlman v. United States, where the individual was otherwise powerless to prevent the disclosure, and cases involving administrative agencies, which are considered self-contained proceedings unlike a grand jury investigation that is part of a larger judicial process.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the procedural requirement for challenging grand jury subpoenas, reinforcing the final judgment rule in federal courts. It creates a high-stakes path for review, forcing a witness to risk a contempt citation—and potential sanctions like fines or imprisonment—to contest a subpoena's validity in an appellate court. The ruling prioritizes the efficiency and uninterrupted function of grand jury investigations over the convenience and risk-aversion of witnesses. This precedent, often called the Cobbledick rule, continues to govern the appealability of such orders and shapes the strategic decisions of individuals and corporations facing grand jury investigations.
Unlock the full brief for Cobbledick et al. v. United States