From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arndstein v. McCarthy

U.S.
Nov 8, 1920
254 U.S. 71 (1920)

Summary

holding that an involuntary bankruptcy did not waive Fifth Amendment privilege against answering questions about schedules he had filed by direction of the court, although debtor had not asserted privilege in the schedules, when filled-out schedules themselves were not facially incriminating

Summary of this case from In re Craten

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 575.

Argued October 21, 22, 1920. Decided November 8, 1920.

Under direction of the bankruptcy court, but without objection, an involuntary bankrupt filed schedules of assets and liabilities, which, standing alone, did not amount to an admission of guilt or furnish clear proof of crime; and, later in the proceeding, he declined to answer certain questions concerning them on the ground that to do so might incriminate him. Held, that by filing the schedules he did not waive his privilege under the Fifth Amendment. P. 72. The privilege of the Amendment applies if it cannot be said that the questions propounded, considered in the light of the circumstances disclosed, may be answered with entire impunity. Id. The provision of § 7 of the Bankruptcy Act that no testimony given by a bankrupt shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding, is not a substitute for the protection of the Fifth Amendment, since it does not prevent the use of his testimony to search out other evidence to be used in evidence against him or his property. P. 73. Reversed.

THE case is stated in the opinion. See also, post, 379.

Mr. Rufus S. Day and Mr. William J. Fallon, with whom Mr. George L. Boyle was on the brief, for appellant.

The Solicitor General for appellee.


Holding that the petition failed to disclose adequate grounds therefor, the court below denied appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus, through which he sought release from confinement for contempt. The cause is here by reason of the constitutional question involved.

The petition alleges:

That having been adjudged an involuntary bankrupt, Arndstein was called before Special Commissioners for examination under § 21-a, Bankruptcy Act. He refused to answer a long list of questions, claiming that to do so might tend to degrade and incriminate him. The District Judge upheld this contention and denied a motion to punish for contempt.

That subsequent to such examination and under the direction of the court the bankrupt filed schedules under oath which purported to show his assets and liabilities. When interrogated concerning these he set up his constitutional privilege and refused to answer many questions which are set out. Thereupon he was committed to jail.

The writ was refused upon the theory that by filing schedules without objection the bankrupt waived his constitutional privilege and could not thereafter refuse to reply when questioned in respect of them. This view of the law we think is erroneous. The schedules standing alone did not amount to an admission of guilt or furnish clear proof of crime and the mere filing of them did not constitute a waiver of the right to stop short whenever the bankrupt could fairly claim that to answer might tend to incriminate him. See Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 597; Foster v. People, 18 Mich. 266, 274; People v. Forbes, 143 N.Y. 219, 230; Regina v. Garbett, 2 C. K. 474, 495. It is impossible to say from mere consideration of the questions propounded, in the light of the circumstances disclosed, that they could have been answered with entire impunity. The writ should have issued.

"No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," — Fifth Amendment. "This provision must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was intended to secure." "The object was to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime." Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562.

The protection of the Constitution was not removed by the provision in § 7 of the Bankruptcy Act, — "No testimony given by him shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding." "It could not and would not prevent the use of his testimony to search out other testimony to be used in evidence against him or his property." Counselman v. Hitchcock, p. 564.

The judgment below must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE DAY took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.


Summaries of

Arndstein v. McCarthy

U.S.
Nov 8, 1920
254 U.S. 71 (1920)

holding that an involuntary bankruptcy did not waive Fifth Amendment privilege against answering questions about schedules he had filed by direction of the court, although debtor had not asserted privilege in the schedules, when filled-out schedules themselves were not facially incriminating

Summary of this case from In re Craten

In Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 138, the Supreme Court held that the privilege of the Fifth Amendment protects the witness against answering questions propounded if, considered in the light of the circumstances disclosed, the questions could not have been answered with entire impunity.

Summary of this case from Aiuppa v. United States

In Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 138, and McCarthy v. Arndstein, 262 U.S. 355, 43 S.Ct. 562, 67 L.Ed. 1023, the question was presented whether a bankrupt's schedules waived his privilege when he was examined under § 21, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 44, sub. a. It was held that they did not, and that he might refuse to answer as to the disposition of his property.

Summary of this case from United States v. St. Pierre

In Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 138 (1920), the Court held that the privilege applied to a witness in a civil action (bankruptcy proceeding), and the courts now treat the privilege as protecting a party or witness from compelled testimony in any proceeding, civil or criminal, so long as the information sought could later be used against that person in a criminal proceeding.

Summary of this case from Moses v. Allard

In Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 138, Arndstein had been adjudged an involuntary bankrupt and was called before special commissioners for examination under the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. He refused to answer a long list of questions, claiming that to do so might tend to incriminate him.

Summary of this case from United States v. Hoag

In Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 128 (1920), a habeas corpus proceeding, Arndstein, an involuntary bankrupt, refused to answer the questions of a panel of special commissioners on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination.

Summary of this case from In re Wilson

In Arndstein, the contention was made that an involuntary bankrupt who filed schedules of property was not permitted to claim the privilege when being examined orally as to those schedules.

Summary of this case from Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court

In Arndstein v. McCarthy (254 U.S. 71), the claim that by verifying and filing bankruptcy schedules the constitutional privilege had been waived was specifically rejected.

Summary of this case from Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding
Case details for

Arndstein v. McCarthy

Case Details

Full title:ARNDSTEIN v . McCARTHY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Nov 8, 1920

Citations

254 U.S. 71 (1920)
41 S. Ct. 26

Citing Cases

Kastigar v. United States

Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S., at 438; Shapiro v. United States, supra, at 6. There was one minor…

Cohen v. Superior Court

This provision of the Amendment must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended…