Document: 419 U.S. 449 95 S.Ct. 584 42 L.Ed.2d 574 Michael Anthony MANESS, Petitioner,v.James R. MEYERS, Presiding Judge. No. 73—689. Argued Oct. 22, 1974. Decided Jan. 15, 1975. Syllabus A lawyer is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, during trial a civil case, refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds produce material demanded by subpoena duces tecum when believes in good faith that may tend incriminate client. To hold otherwise would deny constitutional privilege against self-incrimination means its own implementation, since witness so advised advice becomes an integral part protection accorded Amendment. Pp. 458—470. (a) That client any ensuing criminal action could move suppress subpoenaed after it had been produced does afford adequate protection, because without something more 'he be compelled surrender very which privilge designed guarantee,' Hoffman v. United States, 341 479, 486, 71 814, 818, L.Ed. 1118; States Blue, 384 251, 86 416, 16 510, distinguished. 461—463. (b) Here where petitioner admitted allegedly obscene magazines purpose enjoining their distribution were 'of same character' as recently convicted (so had, at least, reasonable basis assuming risk further prosecution existed), and there was no assurance under state law suppressed avenue other than assertion privilege, with contempt, have assured appellate review advance surrendering magazines, given faith. 468—470. Reversed. William F. Walsh, Houston, Tex., petitioner. Joe B. Dibrell, Jr., Coleman, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide whether proceeding cited party litigation, material. 2 * Petitioner lawyer. In January 1973 before Municipal Court city Temple, Texas, selling seven violation Temple ordinance. Six days later McKelva, served Bell County deputy sheriff directing him 52 169th Judicial District The titles but description contained warrant. 3 Under Texas Penal Code1 upon application attorney district courts issue injunctions prevent illegal matter. here requested City Attorney order obtain such injunction. Besides commanding production ordered petitioner's appear hearing February 1, 1973, give testimony. 4 McKelva appeared represented associate, Karl A. Maley. Earlier, Maley filed written motion quash subpoena. claimed, inter alia, issuance merely attempt require materials testimony McKelva's right himself. 5 At orally argued quash. He, too, contended attempting, through proceeding, discover evidence properly should discovered, if all, process. He freely dealt explicitly acts sexual nature, they previously convicted.2 Thus, he argued, quite clear 'substantial possibility self-incrimination' existed required magazines. foresaw possible either ordinance3 again, or Art. 527 itself. 6 Although claimed Amendment's available criminal, also urged circumstances injunctive quasi-criminal nature. noted brought Code concluded secure search warrant, describing particularity desired produced. 7 responded purely 'there contention get prosecution,' thus incriminating. Further, maintained, 'are sanctions . will incriminating rules ..' 8 reply drew analogy tax cases where, prohibited Internal Revenue Service from using subpoenas records might taxpayers. nature sought irrelevant compass Amendment, character only relevant inquiry. asserted sole test create substantial probability Attorney's representation interested 'certainly bind example Attorney, anyone else who prosecuting case.' 9 court then denied took stand. answer preliminary questions gave name address stated operator Mike's News Temple. having subpoena, asked replied: '(U)nder Counsel, I me.' moved instruct answer, failed do contempt. cocounsel what time allow bring into court, understood applicable rule compliance entertained. Counsel replied according position need allowed because, event, witness. recessed until afternoon instructed return Petitioner's said instruction. 10 When reconvened, recalled, negatively made effort did, however, acknowledge court's them. After indicated reason failure comply belief did entail self-incrimination, again citation. This found respond treated admission are obscene. objected, arguing person penalized asserting way making adverse finding him. judge made, view those convicted, justification treating refusal them considered evidence.4 obliged assert although though held not. 11 heard, recalled disobedience decision, counsel. counsel, specifically counsel incriminatory. would. 12 short recess ruled obscene, enjoined continued exhibition sale. Finally, well client,5 fixed punishment each days' confinement $200 fine. 13 reluctance find attorneys stating this first ever done so, felt usurped authority court: 'This has permitted admissibility evidence. You Before ended, deliberately intentionally attempted frustrate court. philosophical difference between scope protection. defense reached purposes, objection introduce trial. 14 record shows indication whatsoever contumacious conduct cocounsel. appears offended, strictly legal sense, lawyers' caused decline There nothing suggest acted good-faith run self-incrimination. 15 day citation issued petitioner, behalf applied Supreme original writ habeas corpus. pending information complete record, finally 5, 1973. On 8, corpus Western Waco Division. However, a.m. released custody days. release 'for behavior.' 17 Pursuant procedure6 reviewed another judge, respondent here, Judge James Meyers. May 11, General's office appearing support parties agreed burden proof General, injunction provide decision. 18 supported beyond doubt materials, dubious displayed public sale protected stated, 'I think close point.' clearly reflected issue, reflect materials. 19 October Meyers affirmed changed $500 fine confinement. It judgment here. 20 Both refused judgment. Criminal Appeals leave file corpus, petition courts' orders entered 11. By Meyers, personal recognizance bonds seek 21 December 20, Jack Roberts Division, Maley's even incorrect ordinarily must obeyed set aside, valid therefore neither nor privilege. Since liability arise act action. Indeed, leading case Boyd 116 616, 524, 29 746 (1886), involved forfeiture proceedings which, 'though form, criminal.' Id., 634, S.Ct., 534. acting protect rights guaranteed Constitution cannot contempt.' 22 An appeal now Circuit. April 1974, we certiorari, 416 934, 94 1931, 40 285; being our decision case. II 23 narrow 24 begin basic proposition all judgments complied promptly. If whom directs remedy appeal, but, absent stay, promptly appeal. Persons make private determinations obey generally ultimately incorrect. Howat Kansas, 258 181, 189—190, 277, 280—281, 66 550 (1922); Worden Searls, 121 14, 30 853 (1887). orderly expeditious administration justice requires 'an jurisdiction over matter reversed proper proceedings.' Mine Workers, 330 258, 293, 67 677, 696, 91 884 (1947). principle especially E.g., Illinois Allen, 397 337, 90 1057, 25 353 (1970). Such completely, alternative disrupt progress issues collateral central litigation. mean, course, every ruling presiding accepted silence. object ruling. alerts opposing former latter fully La Franca, 282 568, 570, 51 278, 279, 75 551 (1931). But, once ruled, others abide orders. While claims error preserved whatever provide, engage extended discussion advise comply.7 counsels would, first, addition, persisted exposed obstructing Remedies judicial cumbersome injury flowing irreparable, processes imperative operation adversary system justice. reveal information, different situation presented. Compliance cause irreparable always 'unring bell' released. Subsequent vindication necessarily ordinary consequence totally repairing error. situations directed alternative: 26 '(W)e consistently necessity expedition justifies putting one seeks resist choice prior order, resistance concomitant adjudication rejected Cobbledick (309 323, 60 540, 84 783 (1940)); Alexander 201 117, 356, 50 686 (1906); cf. 1416, 510 (1966); Di Bella 369 121, 82 654, 614 (1962); Carroll 354 394, 77 1332, 1442 (1957).' Ryan, 402 530, 532—533, 1580, 1582, 85 (1971). 27 method achieving precompliance particularly appropriate privilege8 involved. ancient roots, see, e.g., Brown Walker, 161 591, 596—597, 644, 646-647, 819 (1896); Miranda Arizona, 436, 458—463, 1602, 1619—1622, 694 see id., 458 n. 27, 1619. broadly construed assure individual used accused Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 562, 195, 198, 35 1110 (1892); Arndstein McCarthy, 254 71, 72—73, 41 26, 65 138 (1920). encompass lead conviction, includes furnish link chain prosecution, reasonably prosecution. 1118 (1951). place occupies justice, traditional respect undergirds procedure described Ryan seems eminently review. 28 present amply suppress,9 introduction Laying side waiver problems followed Rogers 340 367, 438, 344 (1951), nevertheless conclude Without more10 guarantee.' supra, 818. Our views effectiveness conflict (1966). said: 'Even assume Government acquire Blue most entitled fruits trial.' 255, 1419. 31 But crucial distinction instant question indeed 'did acquire' information. turned investigation Here, contrary, yet material, vigorously 'cat' 'out bag' reliance 'let cat out' back. 32 Thus citation, thereby allowing claim, counseled familiar procedure. noncompliance risked both immediate final if, proved wrong, can claim 33 primarily raised civil11 relied heavily argument opposition quash.12 Just vigorously, regardless proceeding. 34 'It coverage determined asserted. applies proceedings, administrative proceedings. interrogation Police Officers out across board. talking about context taken '. (t)he requiring evidence, use say amount contend certainly must.' App. 13—14. 36 overruling disagree. 37 Kastigar 406 441, 92 1653, 212 (1972), reaffirmed 'in judicial, investigatory adjudicatory.' 444, 1656; Lefkowitz Turley, 414 70, 77, 316, 322, 38 274 (1973); Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 94, 1594, 1611, 678 (1964) (White, J., concurring); McCarthy Arndstein, 266 34, 40, 45 16, 17, 69 158 (1924); Saline Bank, Pet. 100, (1828); Gardner Broderick, 392 273, 88 1913, 1082 (1968). proceeded mistaken premise misadvised ultimate merit. explains severe sanction placed— albeit reluctantly—upon seemed witness' obey.13 counseling court-ordered ground disobey order. drained meaning lawfully present,14 it. testimonial many rights, often depends someone trained skilled matter, offer objective opinion. layman aware precise scope, nuances, boundaries privilege.15 self-executing mechanism; affirmatively waived, lost timely fashion. performance lawyer's duty exposes threat giving honest hardly debatable some advocates lose zeal forthrightness independence.16 39 citing recalcitrant based witness, right, choose himself is, be, punished genuine right. Then deprived opportunity early re Watts, 190 718, 47 933 (1903). lawyers clients state, federal, bankruptcy certain property hands receiver. led collision federal courts, citations lawyers. substantively incorrect, convictions stand bad 32, 726. Fuller, speaking Court, 'In clients, founded just interests liable preservation independence bar too vital due general rule.' 29, 725. advocate faith, embracing power compel implementation. III 43 applying these principles important note involve: solely privacy; response compulsory process protest renders inadmissible witness; important, lack claim. 44 pretrial trial, cogently reasons believing applied: fact self-incrimination; named provided past prosecutions; prosecutions definite possibility, pronounced little quashed himself, and, States.' 9—10. 46 character'17 suffered conviction. therefore, existed.18 sides agree devoid disrespect Little, 404 553, 554—555, 659, 660, 708 (1972). highly professional tone revealed statements closing comments contempt: 'If please appreciate Court's position. situation, hope correct, rather Defendant regard 32. 48 statute guaranteeing assuring inadmissible, satisfied performed duties suffer performing faith.19 49 STEWART, BLACKMUN joins, concurring result. today holds embraces testifying unfettered As puts matter: 'layman (I)f privilege.' Ante, 466—467. underlying conclusion derived concerning place. rationale inexorably implies appointed indigent party, compelled. For surely few indigents cognizant Maness' let alone 'nuances' Unless appointed, deprived, Maness, 'To implementation.' 468. 53 am unwilling go far toward recognizing unqualified demand concur wholly ground. 54 More years ago recognized retained arbitrarily hear employed him, doubted denial hearing, sense.' Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69, 55, 64, 158. expansion well-established prohibit counsel's presence courtroom, punish 'right heard counsel' frustrated equally denying preventing 55 not, guarantee absolute immunity gives Whether constitutes arbitrary interference constitutionally attorney—client relationship tenor given. depend Advice invoke state-recognized example, essential discharge responsibility 56 WHITE'S explain justified judge's Maness perform conventional service client's counsel—and law. 57 WHITE, 58 simply plead Obviously, put way, whether, testify complying overruled advises 59 called established rational least 'was insure compelled, investigation, show committed crime.' (1973). noncriminal contexts, 'a rightfully unless answers therefrom subsequent defendant.' 78, 322; objected grounds, danger removed satisfied. Testimony indeed, evidentiary privileges, disclosed. interposed grant removes goodfaith suggestion however be. Should barrier conviction 61 carried demonstrating satisfaction sought-after apparently occasion immunity? me event imposed If, contrary expectations consistent lawyer, State finds offers coerced barred 62 Garrity New Jersey, 385 493, 87 562 (1967), General summoned police officers inquiry fixing traffic tickets. Following warnings anything interrogated official duties. No kind offered answered objections conspiracy officers. 'the Fourteenth prohibits obtained removal office, extends policemen members body politic.' 500, 620. holding, U.S., 79—80, 323—324, declared formal protections, 'if Bram (168 532, 183, 568 (1897)); (116 (1886)).' 322. 63 Given incriminated responses interrogation, extending merits makes sufficiently recognizes rule, business answer. much less reality, along fruits, immunized home Had functional equivalent—that immune answers, supra choice, different. 64 stands, sort ascertained insisted forthcoming convict wrong Cf. supra; (1968); Sanitation Men Comm'r, 280, 1917, 1089 still live controversy vacated mind controlling principles. 80, 1610, (1964). Venon's Ann.Texas Code, (Supp.1973), regulates articles. Generally, provides penalties specific distribution. § 13, enforce provisions: 'Sec. 13. judges thereof shall full power, authority, jurisdiction, district, county, within respective jurisdictions, restraining orders, temporary permanent injunctions, writs carry provisions article. violating except notice enjoined. joinder rendered two enjoined, contain provision county possession seize destroy matter.' entire article repealed Acts 63d Leg., c. 399, 3(a), p. 992, effective new seem equivalent stipulated occurred ordinance dealing obscenity substantially identical Art 527. 527, provides: 12. city, political subdivision enact regulation conflicts Act; authorized regulate manner similarity 29. correctness inferences drawn us presented validity attorney. us. 'Art. 1911a. Contempt; courts; 'Penalties 2. Every municipal $500, jail six months, both, guilty '(c) Provided, officer shall, offended determination guilt innocence Said Administrative wherein alleged occurred. 'Confinement 3. Nothing Act affects confine contemner order.' Vernon's Ann.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., 1911 (Supp.1974—1975). misconduct decided Federal Rules Procedure, Jackson discussed elementary propositions: 'Of litigant press farfetched untenable, Full enjoyment allowance heat controversy, infringed courts. adverse, insult judge—his respectfully preserve point During speak, time, relevance moderation. These obvious matters remind misconceptions manifest Sacher 343 9, 72 451, 455, 96 717 (1952). deals Malloy Hogan, 1489, 653 distinguishes privileges common arising relation priest penitent, physician patient, husband wife. Constitution. cite involuntarily avoid produce. Quite vulnerability intend prosecute prosecute, 452, 453, disagreed. See supra. presented; testify. face immunity, open doubt. earlier, 'quasi 10. Section Article Taxas Code.' Ibid. viewed mere prelude warrant instead tecum. readily concedes chance purge colloquy place: 'THE COURT: you adjudged observe your reference why this, declining want ask directly morning, Counsel? 'A. sir, Friedman, Maness. Does witness? 'MR. MANESS: Your Honor, like endangered producing question, magazines? would.' 27. acts, as, required. rulings undoubtedly consult times did. Stewart extend reasoning confines leads 'inexorably' conclusion. strenuously quasi-criminal, Reliance misplaced statement (1932), '(i)f Comments reach level doctrine, dicta. From dicta violates all; 'constitute attorney-client relationship,' post, 472, travel circuitous route identified 'constitutionally attorney-client' postulated Stewart. American Bar Association Project Standards Justice, Defense Function 1.6 (Approved Draft 1971) difficulty lawyer: '(T)he represent legitimate interests, considerations advantage influence performance.' introductory note: 'A timorous representation. Courage interest qualities advocate.' 146. concession His raise disposition actually encompasses recognize instances patently frivolous purposes delay, Cole 329 F.2d 437 (CA9), cert. denied, 377 954, 1630, 497 (1964); Cioffi, 493 1111, 1119 (CA2), 917, 155 (1974).

Category: 0