Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:28:11+00:00

Document:
Respondents are corporate officers who, with the corporation, were convicted of violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. An in rem action against two corporate products had been begun in June, 1960, and interrogatories routinely prepared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were submitted to the corporation in January, 1961. Later that month, the corporation and respondents were notified, pursuant to § 305 of the Act, that the FDA contemplated a criminal proceeding against them respecting the transactions that were the subject of the civil action. In June, 1961, the District Court denied the corporation's motion to stay further proceedings in the civil action or to extend the time for answering the interrogatories until after disposition of any criminal proceeding. The FDA recommended criminal prosecution prior to the September answer to the interrogatories by the corporation through respondent Feldten. No one associated with the corporation asserted his privilege against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals reversed respondents' convictions on the ground that use of interrogatories to obtain evidence in a nearly contemporaneous civil condemnation proceeding operated to violate their Fifth Amendment privilege.
1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the answers to the interrogatories were involuntarily given. Pp. 397 U. S. 6-11.
(a) Respondent Feldten, who was not barred from asserting his privilege against self-incrimination because the corporation had no privilege of its own or because the proceeding was civil, rather than criminal, failed to assert his privilege, and cannot now complain that he was forced to testify against himself. Pp. 397 U. S. 7-10.
(b) Respondent Kordel, who answered no interrogatories and did not assert the privilege, can hardly claim compulsory self-incrimination, and Kordel cannot claim that his right to confrontation was violated by use in the criminal case against him of his codefendant Feldten's admissions, which were never introduced in evidence. Pp. 397 U. S. 10-11.
2. On the record here the respondents have not established a violation of due process or a departure from proper standards in the administration of justice requiring the exercise of the Court's supervisory power. Pp. 397 U. S. 11-13.
After the Division official had drafted the interrogatories, he recommended that, pursuant to § 305 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA served upon the corporation and the respondents a notice that the agency contemplated a criminal proceeding against them with respect to the transactions that were the subject of the civil action. [Footnote 5] On January 9, 1961, three days after the filing of the interrogatories in the civil action, the Detroit office received an instruction from the Division to serve the statutory notice. The Detroit office complied 10 days later, and, on March 8, 1961, the agency held a hearing on the notice.
of hardship and equities of the respective parties. . . ." Permitting the Government to obtain proof of violations of the Act by resort to civil discovery procedures, the movant urged, would be "improper," and would "work a grave injustice against the claimant"; it would also enable the Government to have pretrial discovery of the respondents' defenses to future criminal charges. Counsel expressly disavowed any "issue of a self-incrimination privilege in favor of the claimant corporation." And nowhere in the moving papers did counsel raise a claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination with respect to the respondents.
On June 21, 1961, the District Court denied the motion upon finding that the corporation had failed to demonstrate that substantial prejudice and harm would result from being required to respond to the interrogatories. The court reasoned that the § 305 notice did not conclusively indicate the Government would institute a criminal proceeding, that six to 12 months could elapse from the service of the statutory notice to initiation of a criminal prosecution, and that the Government could obtain data for a prosecution from the testimony in the civil action or by subpoenaing the books and records of the corporation. Accordingly, the court concluded, the interests of justice did not require that the Government be denied the information it wanted simply because it had sought it by way of civil discovery procedures. On September 5, 1961, in compliance with the court's directive, the corporation, through the respondent Feldten, answered the Government's interrogatories.
to the General Counsel on August 31, 1961, still prior to receipt of Feldten's answers. While the matter was pending in the General Counsel's office, the Division officer who had originally drafted the proposed interrogatories recommended that additional violations of the statute be alleged in the indictment. On June 13, 1962, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare requested the Department of Justice to institute a criminal proceeding, and, about two months after that, the latter department instructed the United States Attorney in Detroit to seek an indictment. The civil case, still pending in the District Court, proceeded to settlement by way of a consent decree in November, 1962, and, eight months later, the Government obtained the indictment underlying the present judgments of conviction.
admissions and laying the foundation for summary judgments.
To be sure, service of the interrogatories obliged the corporation to "appoint an agent who could, without fear of self-incrimination, furnish such requested information as was available to the corporation." [Footnote 11] The corporation could not satisfy its obligation under Rule 33 simply by pointing to an agent about to invoke his constitutional privilege.
"It would indeed be incongruous to permit a corporation to select an individual to verify the corporation's answers who, because he fears self-incrimination, may thus secure for the corporation the benefits of a privilege it does not have. [Footnote 12]"
"clear from the record that Detroit Vital Foods, Inc., was merely the corporate device through which Kordel sold his products. The Government naturally wanted to cut through the facade and get to Kordel, who was the president and dominant personality in the corporation. [Footnote 19]"
We disagree. The Government brought its libel against the goods; the corporation, not Kordel, appeared as claimant. The Government subsequently prosecuted Kordel as an officer of the company. If anyone has sought to cut through the corporate facade so far as the Fifth Amendment privilege is concerned, it is Kordel: he has, in effect, attempted to fashion a self-incrimination claim by combining testimony that he never gave and an assertion of the privilege that he never made with another assertion of the privilege that his company never had.
The Court of Appeals thought that Kordel must go free, in any event, because the Government had used Feldten's admissions in proving its criminal case against both respondents, in violation of the rule in Bruton v.
"the Government may not use evidence against a defendant in a criminal case which has been coerced from him under penalty of either giving the evidence or suffering a forfeiture of his property. [Footnote 28]"
But, on this record, there was no such violation of the Constitution, and no such departure from the proper administration of criminal justice.
52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.
United States v. Detroit Vital Foods, Inc., 407 F.2d 570. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the judgments of conviction of all three defendants, but, on the Government's petition for rehearing, it affirmed with respect to the corporation.
"Any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party."
"Before any violation of [the Act] . . . is reported by the Secretary [of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare] to any United States attorney for institution of a criminal proceeding, the person against whom such proceeding is contemplated shall be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to present his views, either orally or in writing, with regard to such contemplated proceeding."
Service of the statutory notice did not necessarily mean that a criminal prosecution would follow; the testimony before the District Court on the respondents' pretrial motion to suppress evidence indicated that fewer than 10% of the matters involving a § 305 notice reach the stage of either indictment or information.
Compare 407 F.2d at 575 with id. at 572.
Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, 221 U. S. 377, 221 U. S. 385; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 633-635; cf. United States v. 42 Jars . . . "Bee Royale Capsules," 162 F.Supp. 944, 946, aff'd, 264 F.2d 666.
Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118, 354 U. S. 124; Wilson v. United States, supra, at 221 U. S. 385; United States v. 3963 Bottles . . . of . . . "Enerjol Double Strength," 265 F.2d 332, 335-336, cert. denied, 360 U.S. 931; United States v. 30 Individually Cartoned Jars . . . "Ahead Hair Restorer . . . ," 43 F.R.D. 181, 187; cf. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 335 U. S. 27. That the corporation has no privilege is, of course, long established, and not disputed here. See George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, 392 U. S. 286, 392 U. S. 288-289; Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 327 U. S. 196, 327 U. S. 208, 209-210; United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U. S. 707, 321 U. S. 726-727; Essgee Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 151, 262 U. S. 155-156; Wheeler v. United States, 226 U. S. 478, 226 U. S. 489-490; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. ICC, 221 U. S. 612, 221 U. S. 622-623; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 201 U. S. 74-75; cf. Curcio v. United States, supra; United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694,6 322 U. S. 98, 705.
Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273, 392 U. S. 276; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 266 U. S. 40; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 142 U. S. 562, 142 U. S. 563-564; Boyd v. United States, supra; 26 U. S. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100, 26 U. S. 104; 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2257, pp 339-340 (McNaughton rev.1961); C. McCormick, Evidence § 123, p. 259 (1954).
United States v. 96 Bottles . . . of . . . "Enerjol Double Strength," supra, at 336; cf. United States v. 48 Jars . . . "Tranquilease," 23 F.R.D.192, 195, 196; 2A W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 651, p. 101 (Wright ed.1961).
United States v. 96 Bottles . . . of . . . "Enerjol Double Strength," supra, at 336.
Cf. George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, supra, at 392 U. S. 289; Hale v. Henkel, supra, at 201 U. S. 69-70.
Cf. Minor v. United States, 396 U. S. 87, 396 U. S. 98; Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6, 395 U. S. 16; Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 390 U. S. 48; Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 244 U. S. 365.
See Paul Harrigan & Sons v. Enterprise Animal Oil Co., 14 F.R.D. 333.
Luey v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 40 F.Supp. 632, 634; Glick v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 10 F.R.D. 477, 479, 480; Bowles v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 4 F.R.D. 469, 470; Blanc v. Smith, 3 F.R.D. 182, 183. The respondents, urging that the Government had the burden of establishing the availability of an agent to answer for the corporation, rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Communist Party v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 331 F.2d 807, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 968. But there, the court departed from the customary allocation of the burden on the ground that the mere act of volunteering the information sought, or even of showing that an effort had been made to find someone who would answer, was itself potentially incriminatory. Id. at 68-69, 331 F.2d at 814-815.
See United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 388 F.2d 201, 204, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 922; United States v. Simon, 373 F.2d 649, 653, cert. granted sub nom. Simon v. Wharton, 386 U.S. 1030, vacated as moot, 389 U. S. 425; but see National Discount Corp. v. Holzbaugh, 13 F.R.D. 236, 237.
Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273, 392 U. S. 276; Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 340 U. S. 372-375; United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 317 U. S. 427; Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 273 U. S. 113; Brown. v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 161 U. S. 597.
391 U. S. 391 U.S. 123. See 407 F.2d at 575.
See Bruton v. United States, supra, at 391 U. S. 126.
Cf. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U. S. 20, 226 U. S. 51-52 (Sherman Act).
Cf. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677, 356 U. S. 683-684; United States v. Pennsalt Chemicals Corp., 260 F.Supp. 171, and see United States v. Thayer, 214 F.Supp. 929; Beard v. New York Central R. Co., 20 F.R.D. 607.
See Smith v. Katzenbach, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 114-116, 351 F.2d 810, 811-813; United States v. Lipshitz, 132 F.Supp. 519, 523; United States v. Guerrina, 112 F.Supp. 126, 128.
Cf. Nelson v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 19, 21, and n.19, 208 F.2d 505, 510, 512, and n.19, cert. denied, 346 U.S. 827.
Cf. United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 388 F.2d 201, 204-205, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 922.
Federal courts have deferred civil proceedings pending the completion of parallel criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice seemed to require such action, sometimes at the request of the prosecution, Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 955; United States v. Bridges, 86 F.Supp. 931, 933; United States v. 30 Individually Cartoned Jars . . . "Ahead Hair Restorer . . . ," 43 F.R.D. 181, 187 n. 8; United States v. One 1964 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 41 F.R.D. 352, 353-354; United States v. $2,437 United States Currency, 36 F.R.D. 257; United States v. Steffes, 35 F.R.D. 24; United States v. Maine Lobstermen's Assn., 22 F.R.D.199; United States v. Cigarette Merchandisers Assn., 18 F.R.D. 497; United States v. Linen Supply Institute, 18 F.R.D. 452; sometimes at the request of the defense, Kaeppler v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., 200 F.Supp. 229; Perry v. McGuire, 36 F.R.D. 272; cf. Nichols v. Philadelphia Tribune Co., 22 F.R.D. 89, 92.

References: § 305
 § 305
 § 305
 v.

 § 301
 v. 
 § 305
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2257
 § 123
 v. 
 v. 
 § 651
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.