Opinion ID: 423618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Produce

Text: 27 Rylander's criminal contempt conviction for failure to produce stems from his failure to turn over the summoned documents to the IRS on February 4, 1980, as required by the district court's order of January 15, 1980. A federal court may punish, as criminal contempt of its authority, disobedience or resistance to its lawful order. Criminal contempt is established when it is shown that the defendant is aware of a clear and definite court order and willfully disobeys the order. United States v. Powers, 629 F.2d at 627. The primary issue in this case is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rylander willfully disobeyed the court's order of January 15. 28 If Rylander lacked the ability to comply with the court's order, he could not be found to have willfully violated it. Thus, inability to comply with the court's order would be a complete defense. See United States v. Joyce, 498 F.2d 592, 596 (7th Cir.1974). It is therefore relevant whether the summoned documents existed and were within Rylander's possession or control between January 15, 1980, the date the district court issued its order, and February 4, 1980, the date upon which the order required production. 29 The Government contends that, because Rylander did not claim lack of possession at the summons enforcement proceeding, the doctrine of res judicata precludes the argument that the documents did not exist or were not within his possession or control. Although in Rylander I the Supreme Court held that under Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 68 S.Ct. 401, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948), the prior proceeding did preclude Rylander's lack of possession defense to the civil contempt citation, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 1552, the same is not true of the criminal contempt citation. The type of issue preclusion approved in Maggio was intended to apply only in civil contempt proceedings. 333 U.S. at 68, 68 S.Ct. at 407. It is an elementary principle of issue preclusion that it may only be asserted where the burden of proof as to that issue is no greater than it was in the prior proceeding where the issue was decided. C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, 18 Federal Practice and Procedure § 4422 (1981); see One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 235, 93 S.Ct. 489, 492, 34 L.Ed.2d 438 (1972) (per curiam). In the criminal contempt proceeding, the Government was required to prove all elements of the offense, including an ability to comply with the order, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government's burden was substantially less in the summons enforcement proceeding. Thus, even if possession or control was established in the summons enforcement proceeding, the Government cannot assert preclusion as to that issue in the criminal contempt proceeding. 30 There was evidence in the record that Rylander was unable to comply with the order because the documents either did not exist or were not within his possession or control. 2 Two witnesses testified as to Rylander's February 4 appearance at the IRS office, where Rylander stated that he was unable to produce the summoned documents because he did not have them. In addition, the three-page statement dictated by Rylander and filed by his son, Edwin, at the March 24 hearing was admitted into evidence. In that statement Rylander said that he had no such documents and was therefore unable to produce them as ordered on February 4. This evidence, even though introduced by the Government, created a factual question as to Rylander's ability to comply with the January 15 order. 31 The Government tried to prove that Rylander was able to produce the documents by showing that he had previously been the principal officer of the two corporations. The Government's evidence showed that Rylander had been president of the two corporations between 1972 and 1977. It also showed that he had performed various acts on behalf of the corporation prior to 1980. There was no direct evidence that the documents sought were in existence and in Rylander's possession or control on or after January 15, 1980. 32 Rylander's status as a former corporate officer, particularly in light of his claim that he did not possess or control the documents, is not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt his ability to produce the summoned documents in January 1980. The inferences that may arise from his past relationship with the corporation are simply not strong enough on the facts of this case to establish beyond a reasonable doubt an ability to comply with the court's order. Accordingly, we hold that there was not sufficient evidence to convict Rylander of criminal contempt for his failure to produce the summoned documents.