United States v. Kordel
25 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 71, 397 U.S. 1 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual corporate officer who fails to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when answering civil interrogatories on behalf of the corporation cannot later claim that the answers were compelled and seek to suppress them in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The government may pursue parallel civil and criminal proceedings without violating due process, absent special circumstances indicating bad faith or fundamental unfairness.
Facts:
- In March 1960, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began investigating Detroit Vital Foods, Inc., for potential violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning its products 'Korleen' and 'Frutex'.
- While a civil seizure action against the products was pending, the FDA served a notice upon the corporation and its officers, Kordel and Feldten, that it was contemplating a criminal proceeding against them regarding the same transactions.
- After the notice of a potential criminal proceeding was served, the government served extensive written interrogatories on the corporation in the civil case.
- The corporation's vice president, Feldten, answered the interrogatories on behalf of the corporation.
- Feldten did not assert his personal Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at any point when answering the interrogatories.
- The government later obtained an indictment and used information and leads from Feldten's answers in the criminal prosecution against him and Kordel.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil in rem action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to seize misbranded products from Detroit Vital Foods, Inc.
- During the civil action, the corporation filed a motion to stay the proceedings or extend the time to answer interrogatories, which the District Court denied.
- Feldten answered the interrogatories, the civil case was settled, and the government subsequently obtained a criminal indictment against the corporation, Kordel, and Feldten.
- At the criminal trial in the District Court, the respondents' pretrial motion to suppress evidence from the interrogatories was denied, and they were convicted.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, reversed the individual convictions of Kordel and Feldten, finding a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights.
- The United States (the government) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 government's use of evidence or leads gained from a corporate officer's answers to civil interrogatories in a subsequent criminal prosecution against that officer violate their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, when the officer failed to assert the privilege and instead answered the questions on the corporation's behalf?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The government's use of the interrogatory answers in the subsequent criminal prosecution does not violate the officers' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment privilege is not self-executing and must be affirmatively claimed when the incriminating information is sought. Feldten had the option to invoke his personal privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, but he failed to do so. His failure to assert the privilege at the time he answered the interrogatories on behalf of the corporation prevents him from later claiming he was compelled to give testimony against himself. While a corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege, it is obligated to appoint an agent who can answer interrogatories without self-incrimination; the respondents failed to show that no such agent existed. Kordel's claim is even more tenuous, as he never answered any interrogatories nor asserted any privilege. Furthermore, pursuing parallel civil and criminal actions is permissible and does not violate due process absent evidence of bad faith, such as bringing the civil case solely to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be affirmatively and timely asserted by an individual, even in the context of civil discovery. It clarifies that a corporate officer cannot remain silent, answer interrogatories on behalf of the corporation, and then later use the Fifth Amendment as a shield to suppress those answers in a criminal case. This ruling gives government agencies significant latitude to pursue parallel civil and criminal enforcement actions, placing the onus on individuals to protect their own rights during the civil phase. For future cases, it establishes that challenges to such parallel proceedings will likely fail unless defendants can demonstrate specific evidence of government misconduct or bad faith, rather than relying on the mere existence of simultaneous investigations.
