In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Schofield II)
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
507 F.2d 963 (1975)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Schofield was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Schofield was granted immunity from prosecution for forgery and testified for several hours. Subsequently, Schofield received a subpoena directing that she permit photographs, fingerprints, and handwriting exemplars to be taken. Schofield refused. The government moved to enforce the subpoena. The government’s supporting affidavit stated that the grand jury was investigating possible perjury and false-declarations violations in the jurisdiction; Schofield had been advised she was a potential defendant in the investigation; and the handwriting exemplars, fingerprints, and photographs would be used for comparison to determine whether Schofield had forged checks. Schofield argued that the government’s affidavit was not sufficiently detailed for a determination that the photographs, fingerprints, and handwriting exemplars were relevant to the grand jury investigation. The district court concluded that the government’s affidavit complied with the affidavit requirements set forth in In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Schofield I), 486 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1973), denied further review, and ordered enforcement of the subpoena. Schofield refused to comply and was held in civil contempt. Schofield appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, III, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.