Document: 460 U.S. 752 103 S.Ct. 1548 75 L.Ed.2d 521 UNITED STATES, et al., Petitionersv.Richard W. RYLANDER, Sr., As President of Rylander & Co. Realtors, Inc., al. No. 81-1120. Argued Jan. 18, 1983. Decided April 19, Rehearing Denied June 6, See U.S., 2466. Syllabus The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summoned respondent (respondent) to appear before an IRS agent and produce for examination, testify with respect to, records two corporations which was president. When failed comply the summons, District Court enforced it ordered him corporate records. Subsequently, after a hearing, held in civil contempt failure court's enforcement order, finding that he had introduce any evidence support his claim did not possess Appeals reversed, holding respondent's out-of-court declaration documents, together invocation privilege against self-incrimination under Fifth Amendment, required Government shoulder burden producing able question, that, notwithstanding issuance free relitigate question possession or control proceeding. Held: incorrect both its view relationship between proceeding proceeding, effect Amendment on production at hearing. Pp. 756-762. (a) Because enforce summons is adversary defendant may contest appropriate ground, because lack such issue be raised first time In latter assert present inability but raising this defense has production. Thus, while hearing could attack order ground lacked issued, defend charge then unable control. 756-757. (b) While assertion valid upon witness as declines answer questions, substitute would assist meeting Curcio v. United States, 354 118, 77 1145, 1 1225, distinguished. Appeals' convert from shield compulsory intended into sword whereby claimant asserting freed adducing proof otherwise have been his. Pp.757-761. 656 F.2d 1313, reversed. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Joseph F. Harbison, III, Sacramento, Cal., respondents. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. Respondent by States Eastern California earlier enforcing books Ninth Circuit reversed holding, concluding Rylander's showing self-incrimination, government documents question. conflict among various Courts issue, we granted certiorari, --- ----, 102 2006, 72 464 (1982), now reverse. 2 January, 1979, issued pursuant 26 U.S.C. § 7602 (1976). California, corporations. president each corporation. show cause why should enforced. several months succeeded evading service, November, Marshal personally serve fourth successive court. 1980, return date file responsive pleading He sent unsworn letter court claiming neither either corporation nor associated them way. February, 3 sought reconsideration appeal it. appeared agent, After encounter, contempt. again successfully evaded service May, found willfully avoiding bench warrant arrest. 4 took place different dates October, 1980. initial skirmish, stand verified "Oath Purgation Contempt" submitted essence disposed other persons. refused submit additional questioning oath government, conferred Constitution. 5 contempt, "fail[ed] evidence" affirmatively "as officer control, both, said corporations." App. Pet. Cert. A17-18. Thus 21 him, finally faced directing subpoenaed face imprisonment. 6 appealed Appeals, 1313 (CA9 1981). agreed meets only come forward "categorically detail" comply. Id., 1318. But concluded need meet where "he properly claims testimony whereabouts might incriminating." 1319. stated further: 7 "When made bona fide fifth amendment claim, statement are sufficient satisfy shifts actually exist defendant's control." Ibid. 8 raise limit argument determined if valid, met.1 We think 9 On numerous occasions called review statutory authorization summon witnesses seek judicial summons. See, e.g., LaSalle National Bank, 437 298, 98 2357, 57 221 (1978); Fisher 425 391, 96 1569, 48 39 (1976); Powell, 379 48, 85 248, 13 112 (1964); Reisman Caplin, 375 440, 84 508, 11 459 (1964). There no disagreement here concerning basic scheme. case, emphasized summary nature, government's light, there express 10 matter gave insufficient weight Court's observations Maggio Zeitz: "It disservice law were depart long-standing rule does open legal factual basis alleged disobeyed thus become retrial original controversy. procedure commanding forbidding act so inconclusive foster experimentation disobedience." 333 56, 69, 68 401, 408, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948). also id., 75, S.Ct., 411. 12 "on ground," 449, 513-514, surely Cf. Bryan, 339 323, 70 724, 94 884 (1950); Fleischman, 349, 739, 906 (1950). Euge, 444 707, 100 874, 63 141 (1980). this, course, Zeitz, 75-76, 411-412; Oriel Russell, 278 358, 366, 49 173, 175, 73 419 (1929). bound will blind compliance factually impossible. Where impossible, moving party reason proceed action. It settled, however, defense, McPhaul 364 372, 379, 81 138, 142, 136 (1960); 175. 362-363, 746. 14 recognizing obligated assume making felt 1980 shift back government. disagree. analyze denial when Contempt." Since declined cross-examined assertions nonpossession, entirely justified concluding, did, "failed trial." This testimony, ex parte affidavit uncross-examined disregarded McGautha 402 183, 215, 91 1454, 1471, 28 711 (1971); Brown 356 148, 155, 78 622, 626-627, 589 (1958). 15 fact asserted refusing allow cross-examination answering questions lead incriminate himself. never thought itself None our cases view. 16 squarely rejected notion, apparently subscribed possible form "compulsion" requires shifted shoulders Williams Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 446 (1970); see Barnes 412 837, 93 37 380 (1973); Turner 396 398, 642, 24 610 Yee Hem 268 178, 45 470, 69 904 (1925); Wilson 162 613, 895, 40 1090 (1896). Williams, said: "The criminal trial frequently 17 forced himself call effort reduce risk conviction. presents witnesses, must reveal their identity prove incriminating furnish State leads rebuttal evidence. That faces dilemma demanding choice complete silence presenting invasion compelled self-incrimination. pressures generated State's severe they do vitiate alibi it, even though attempted ends catastrophe defendant. However 'testimonial' 'incriminating' proves be, cannot considered 'compelled' within meaning Fourteenth Amendments." 83-84, 1896-1897 (emphasis added). 18 nonetheless decision 1225 (1957), prevented being carry consequences proof. read case Curcio, "whether petitioner's personal attaches relating union subpoena." 122, 1148. went distinguish Hale Henkel, 201 43, 370, 50 652 (1906), 361, 31 538, 55 771 (1911), White, 322 694, 64 1248, 88 1542 (1944), respectively custodians belonging unions those withhold custodian incriminated accept contention, based cases, refuse about grounds him. reversing conviction, pointedly noted: 19 "This conviction rested solely subpoena ad testificandum. charged failing demanded duces tecum." 121, 20 instant exactly converse one Curcio. originally them. remaining assumed, do, "attached" records; decided say more than overruled incarcerated questions. not, previous unappealed from, necessarily contained implied sustained defending produce, presumption continuing arising supra, refusal accompanied adequate compelling respond hearing,2 relevant 22 justifiably possession.3 committed custody until saved alternative "to incarceration, run himself," F.2d, 1319; produces possession, adduces order. 23 plainly result, frank regret do. sanctions so, step patiently assuring procedural rights protected, require still hearings records, having reopened Given oft-stated reliance federal income tax system self-assessment, plainer guide successful frustration hardly imagined. analogous context Bryan: "A treated invitation game hare hounds, cornered end chase. If then, indeed, great power testimonial compulsion, necessary effective functioning courts legislatures, nullity." 331, 730. judgment 25 Reversed. MARSHALL, dissenting. 27 I join another creates new exception constitutional right—the Prior today, man perform currently perform, regardless whether once wrongfully so. 72-74, n. 409-410, (1948) authorities cited therein. 29 Here possessed (Emphasis added.) Although "[u]nder some circumstances permissible . reach conclusion possession," 65, 406, determination instance trier fact, past possession. 30 find simply invoked asked documents. At judge appointed counsel "purposes aiding [Rylander] determining propriety desired privileges asked." transcript reads follows: "EXAMINATION BY THE COURT 32 Q. Mr. Rylander, you filed subject action; true, sir? 33 A. correct your honor. 34 records? 35 respectfully decline advice my Amendment. 36 COURT: Thank you, sir, don't go beyond I? MR. HARBISON [counsel Rylander]: Honor. 38 am going direct know can, sir. HARBISON: object ask sole purpose make record. What else needs done record, Robinson? ROBINSON States]: Your 41 Honor, move strike, opportunity cross-examine contents affidavit. 42 motion taken submission. Now position motion. You down, Rylander." 43 entitled invoke answers tended 128, 1151-1152, 44 "[F]orcing [of records] orally nonproduced disclose own mind. convict out mouth. contrary spirit Amendment." proper, testify. 46 "[T]he compel absolute. number exemptions duty, most important reflects complex fundamental values aspirations, marks advance development liberty. can criminal, administrative judicial, investigatory adjudicatory; protects disclosures reasonably believes used prosecution used. zealous safeguard underlie privilege." Kastigar 406 441, 444-445, 1653, 1656-1657, 212 (1972) (footnotes omitted). 47 agree proper disposition "remand district validity claim. finds permit burden. stage proceedings, met clear convincing contempt." 1319-1320 (citations remanded and, provided sustained, ability argued submitting taking verify declaration, waived privilege. decide state explicitly believe implicit A supported case; themselves warranted inference 64-67, 405-407, 411-412,

Category: 0