Document: 354 U.S. 118 77 S.Ct. 1145 1 L.Ed.2d 1225 Joseph CURCIO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 260. Argued March 28, 1957. Decided June 10, Mr. Samuel Mezansky, New York City (Mr. Daniel H. Greenberg, City, with him on the brief), for petitioner. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BURTON delivered opinion Court. The issue in this case is whether custodian a union's books and records may, ground his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, refuse to answer questions asked by federal grand jury as whereabouts such which he has not produced pursuant subpoena. For reasons hereafter stated, we hold that self-incrimination attaches questions. 2 In April 1956, special United States District Court Southern was investigating racketeering garment trucking industries City. This investigation followed wide-spread charges labor unions, including specific seven local unions had been recently chartered faction International Brotherhood Teamsters gain control Teamsters' Joint Council, these 'phantom unions' were controlled group gangsters, ex-convicts racketeers. 3 Petitioner, Curcio, secretary-treasurer Local 269 Teamsters, one alleged unions,' subpoenaed appear before jury, produce records. There two subpoenas—a personal subpoena ad testificandum duces tecum addressed capacity 269. On several days appeared but failed demanded He testified 269; union records; they then possession. refused, any pertaining whereabouts, or who possession, ordered produce. 4 Court, after hearing petitioner attempted justify claim privilege, directed 15 records.1 It ruled petitioner's improper because made sufficient showing answers might incriminate him. When persisted refusal answer, summarily adjudged guilty criminal contempt, sentenced six months' confinement unless sooner purged himself answering conviction related solely failure testificandum. charged failing tecum. 5 Appeals affirmed conviction. Cir., 234 F.2d 470. held show him; did attach put relating books; accorded fair hearing. We granted certiorari determine properly denied. 352 820, 62, 45. 6 courts below, Government contended tend no longer so contends. its brief it now says, 'We make that, if apply concerning records, an adequate possible incrimination.' substantial Government's concession.2 7 turn, therefore, remaining issue—whether 8 settled corporation protected constitutional self-incrimination. A corporate officer may withhold testimony documents would be incriminated. Hale v. Henkel, 201 43, 26 370, 50 L.Ed. 652. Nor them personally incriminated their production. Wilson States, 221 361, 31 538, 55 771; Essgee Co. 262 151, 43 514, 67 917. Even dissolution transfer individual stockholders, transferees invoke respect former Grant 227 74, 33 190, 57 423; Wheeler 226 478, 158, 309. foregoing cases stand principle corporations cannot insulated from reasonable demands governmental authorities part custodian. 9 White, 322 694, 64 1248, 88 1542, applied unincorporated association, union. Stating historic function 'protecting only natural compulsory incrimination through own records' (id., at page 701, 1252), 'the papers effects protects must private property person claiming least possession purely capacity' 699, 1251). 10 'But individuals, when acting representatives collective group, said exercising rights duties nor entitled privileges. Rather assume rights, privileges artificial entity association are agents officers bound obligations. official capacity, have And organization representative rather than subject even though production personally.' Id., 1251. 11 contends duty required White requires giving oral case. From fact also seeking ascertain produced. other words, fails books, must, according Government, explain account under oath nonproduction, do 12 suggests exception. guarantees 'No * shall compelled witness *.' custodian, assuming office, undertakes obligation response rightful exercise State's visitorial powers. But lawfully compelled, absence grant immunity prosecution, condemn testimony. 13 case, supra, leading proposition prevent Hughes, speaking drew distinction sharply. said, 'They (the custodians records) decline utter upon single self-criminating word. They demand accusation individually established without aid papers.' U.S., 385, 546. careful point out 'The (322 704, 1254), 'He (White, testify' 695—696, 1250), 'there effort indicated intention examine witness' 696, 1250). Shapiro 335 1, 27, 68 1375, 1389, 92 1787, holding kept food licensees wartime OPA regulations, 'Of course all individuals can exchange waiver privilege.' hint decisions waives office. By accepting custodianship 'has voluntarily assumed overrides privilege' themselves. 380, 544. 14 Austin-Bagley Corp., 229, following it3 relied Government. Those cases, required, testimony, identify them, distinguishable need pass validity. custodian's act producing itself representation those Requiring authenticate admission evidence merely makes explicit what implicit itself. subjected little, any, further danger incrimination. However, instant compel more already seeks disclose, name persons whose missing found. Answers 'auxiliary production' unprivileged records.4 cites Field, 193 92, directly supporting position.5 trustees bail fund contempt After affirming convictions ground, Second Circuit went consider, way dictum, contentions raised trustees. One about location improper. court, relying produced, 'were proper precedents.' 97. cited, however, support court's dictum.6 16 will obtained readily law-enforcement purposes threatened summary commitment testify prosecution disobedience concern ourselves relative efficacy procedures.7 great difference between them. justifiable, protests reasons, does legally cognizable interest forcing orally nonproduced disclose contents mind. convict mouth. That contrary spirit letter Amendment. 17 Accordingly, judgment reversed remanded instructions enter acquittal. 18 Reversed remanded. follows: 'I am going ask you certain questions, some Thursday, declined answer. Referring time custody records? 'Mr. ever local? 'Did last Thursday? 'Do today? 'Where today, know? 'Who week ago Saturday? Monday? yesterday? 'Who, know, above selected 225 jury. foreman 15, and, advised proposed itself, constitute court. Judge thereupon open court presence Petitioner refused each stated racketeering. newspapers featured locals' dominated gangsters conceded prison record president Johnny DioGuardia, allegedly key figures area. context, incriminating. See U.S.C. §§ 1503 1951, U.S.C.A. 1503, 1951. 'To sustain evident implications question, setting asked, responsive question explanation why answered dangerous injurious disclosure could result.' Hoffman 341 479, 486—487, 71 814, 818, 95 1118. also, Trock 351 976, 76 1048, 100 1493; Emspak 349 75 687, 99 997; Singleton 343 944, 72 1041, 96 1349; Greenberg 918, 674, 1332. Pulford 155 947; Lumber Products Ass'n 144 546, 553; Carolene 140 61, 66 67; Illinois Alcohol Co., 45 145, 149. Lay Fish 136, 137. pages 233, 234, explains scope limitations doctrine. corporation, conspiracy violate National Prohibition Act, 27 § et seq., called minutes corporation. Learned Hand, Appeals, upheld procedure, stating: 'That contained entries incriminating accused, well-settled law. availability necessarily authenticated. Conceivably force production, yet possessor proving purport be. 'While, disguise tenuous, distinction, think greater includes less, since forced, effective compelling producer declare genuine. Hence appears us (Heike 131, 226, 450) determines auxiliary office holder exposes documents, making use requiring proof own.' Bleakley Schlesinger, 294 N.Y. 312, 62 N.E.2d 85, give suffer penalty nonproduction. cf. Bradley O'Hare, App.Div.2d 436, 156 N.Y.S.2d 533, where privileged. Moreover, prior subsequent same judges participated, contradict statement Field Daisart Sportswear, Inc., 169 856, 861—862, 'we believe projected phases corporation's activities, obtaining matter disclose.' further, distinguished contain, produced.' 862. Subsequently, Patterson, 219 659, 662, reversing approved trial ruling defendant here jailed sought-after fairly shown presently within power control. invoking constitutionally himself.' Lopiparo 216 87, proceeded Nilva 431, 415; Fleischman, 339 349, 70 739, 94 906; 1542; 771. memorandum filed later comply issued capacity. suggested compliance rendered proceeding moot, order criminal, civil, contempt.

Category: 0