Court Opinion

ID: 9468431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:14:45.292317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:52.013033
License: Public Domain

FAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Most respectfully, I dissent. Judge Anderson has written a detailed scholarly analysis of the facts and law surrounding the issues presented. In my opinion, however, the majority opinion has lost sight of the single most important question presented:
Does the voluntary production of personal papers during a civil tax audit constitute an absolute unconditional waiver of all rights (including the Fifth Amendment) when criminal proceedings follow thereafter?
The government has copies of the two income ledger books. The information contained within those papers is available and usable in the criminal proceedings. But, that is not what is before us. What is presented to us is a court order requiring the production of the original documents because,
“The attorney for the Government has determined that further handwriting and ink analysis is necessary in order to develop possible additional evidence for use at the trial of this case. In order for the Government scientists to perform such analyses, it is necessary that the original ledger books be made available to them for testing (R 223).”
To conclude that the previous voluntary disclosure of the two ledger books during a civil audit equates with the stripping from the books their confidential nature, for all purposes, and thus defeats the attorney-client privilege is too big a jump for me. The government could have conducted whatever tests it desired, but it did not. The taxpayers demanded the return of the two ledgers. The books (originals) were returned. The taxpayers then sought legal advice from Mr. Russ and turned the ledgers over to him. Mr. Russ is raising the taxpayers’ rights under the Fifth Amendment. I would uphold his right to do so.
The “testimonial aspect” of producing documents surely covers more than mere authentication. These are private personal papers. Boyd is alive! To suggest, as the majority opinion does in footnote 7, that this case can be decided without reaching the Fifth Amendment issue, is to ignore the very guts of the only question presented. The appellant refused to produce the ledgers upon the grounds that such an act would violate his clients’ constitutional priv*573ilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Based upon the authorities cited, but not followed, by the majority, I would uphold that refusal.