Nelson v. United States; Bossard v. Same; McNair v. Same

Supreme Court of United States
201 U.S. 92 (1906)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A corporate officer in custody of corporate documents cannot assert a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to produce those documents, as the privilege is personal to the individual and does not extend to the artificial entity of a corporation.

Facts:

The United States government initiated an antitrust suit against several paper manufacturing corporations, alleging they formed a conspiracy to suppress competition in violation of the Sherman Act of 1890.
The government alleged the corporations accomplished this by creating the General Paper Company to act as an exclusive selling agent, controlling output, prices, and distribution.
The constituent manufacturing corporations owned the stock of the General Paper Company, and their principal officers served on its board of directors.
As part of its investigation, the government subpoenaed several corporate officers, including Nelson (plaintiff in error), to testify and produce the books and records of their respective companies.
The officers appeared but refused to produce the requested corporate documents or answer questions about their contents.
The officers asserted that producing the documents and providing testimony would violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for both themselves and their corporations.

Procedural Posture:

The United States filed a suit in equity in the U.S. Circuit Court against several paper companies alleging antitrust violations.
During pre-trial examinations, the government subpoenaed several corporate officers (the witnesses) to produce corporate documents.
The witnesses refused to produce the documents, asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege.
The government moved the Circuit Court to compel the witnesses to produce the documents.
The Circuit Court granted the government's motion and ordered the witnesses to produce the documents.
The witnesses disobeyed the court's order.
The Circuit Court found the witnesses in contempt of court and issued a judgment against them.
The witnesses sought a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Circuit Court's judgment of contempt.

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 the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination permit a corporate officer to refuse to produce corporate documents in their possession when subpoenaed, on the grounds that the documents may incriminate the corporation or the officer personally?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice McKenna

No. The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a corporate officer to refuse to produce corporate documents, as the privilege is a personal one that cannot be asserted on behalf of a corporation. The court rejected the witnesses' arguments that the evidence was immaterial, that they did not have sufficient control over the documents, and that they were protected by the Fifth Amendment. Regarding materiality, a witness cannot object on these grounds; that is for the parties to argue and the court to decide. The argument that officers do not possess corporate documents was dismissed as nonsensical, as a corporation can only possess documents through its human agents. Most importantly, the court held that its recent decisions in Hale v. Henkel and McAlister v. Henkel were controlling, establishing that the Fifth Amendment privilege is personal and cannot be invoked by a corporation, nor can an officer use it to shield corporate records from production.

Analysis:

This decision, read alongside Hale v. Henkel, solidifies the legal doctrine that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is a purely personal right that does not apply to corporations. It establishes that a corporate agent cannot refuse to produce corporate documents even if those documents would incriminate the agent personally, effectively separating the agent's custodial duties from their personal constitutional rights. This precedent significantly strengthens the government's regulatory and investigatory power over corporations by preventing them from using their officers as a shield to hide incriminating evidence, particularly in complex areas like antitrust and financial regulation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Nelson v. United States; Bossard v. Same; McNair v. Same (1906)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"