In re Special February 2011-1 Grand Jury Subpoena Dated September 12, 2011
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
691 F.3d 903 (2012)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
The target witness (T.W.) (defendant) discovered in 2009 that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had opened a file on him and had begun investigating him for federal income-tax evasion. The investigation centered on secret offshore bank accounts. The government (plaintiff) sent the case to the grand jury. T.W. was subpoenaed by the grand jury to produce several years of records that T.W. was required by law to maintain under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. T.W. filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that compelled production of the subpoenaed records would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. If T.W. produced them, it could reveal unreported or inaccurately reported bank information, and if he claimed not to have them, he could be charged with a felony for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The government argued that the required-records doctrine superseded T.W.’s Fifth Amendment privilege, even if the act of production was testimonial, incriminating, and compelled. The district court quashed the subpoena, holding that the required-records doctrine was not applicable because producing the required records was a testimonial act compelling T.W. to incriminate himself. The government appealed the order quashing the subpoena.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bauer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
