Dreier v. United States
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2020Brown v. Tennison D. Colo.
- 2018In re Russo Tex. App. Ct.
- 2016City of San Jose v. MediMarts, Inc. Cal. Ct. App.
- 2015in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle Tex. App.
- 2006Amato v. United States 1st Cir.
- 2002American Express Business Finance Corp. v. RW Professional Leasing Services Corp. E.D.N.Y.
- 1999United States v. John Doe # 1 2d Cir.
- 1998Mayor of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette Vin No. 1G1YY22P585103433 Md. Ct. Spec. App.
- 1998Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Commission Md.
- 1996In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated April 9, 1996 S.D. Fla.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
DREIER v. UNITED STATES. DREIER v. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL.
Judges
- Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result upon the ground of waiver.
Attorneys
- Mr. W. Wickham Smith, with whom Mr. John K. Maxwell was on the brief, for plaintiff in error and appellant:-
- The Solicitor Generalj with whom The Attorney General, Mr. Wm. S. Kenyon, Assistant to the Attorney General, and Mr. O. E. Harrison, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for the United States:
Delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error and appellant, William Dreier, was subpoenaed to produce before the grand jury in the Circuit Court certain books and papers of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a New York corporation, of which he was the secretary.' The grand jury was conducting an inquiry with respect to alleged violations of the customs laws by N. Hayes and others. The subpoena contained the ad testificandum clause, but the only question presented is with respect to the demand for the corporate documents. For his refusal to produce them for the inspection of the grand jury, Dreier was committed for contempt. The first'case (No. 358) is a writ of error to the Circuit Court to review the judgment holding, him to be in contempt and directing his commitment; and the second (No. 359) is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The contention of Dreier in both cases is that the contents of the books and papers would tend to incriminate him and that the proceedings to compel their production were in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
It is urged that if he had a privilege, his conduct was such as to constitute a waiver. But it is not necessary to consider the case in this aspect. Dreier was not entitled to refuse .the production of the corporate records. By virtue of the fact that they were the documents of the corporation in his custody, and not his private papers, he was under obligation to produce them when called for by proper process. Wilson v. United States, decided this day,
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result upon the ground of waiver.