United States v. Hubbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Hubbell

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 22, 2000
Decided June 5, 2000


Full case name:	United States of America v. Webster Hubbell

Citations:	530 U.S. 27; 120 S. Ct. 2037; 147 L Ed 2d 24;

Holding

A person responding to subpoena, pursuant to a court order granting immunity, cannot be prosecuted on the basis of information in the documents produced if the government did not have any prior, independent knowledge of the documents.

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Case opinions

Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent by: Rehnquist

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. V; 18 USC section 6003 (a)

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted for various fraud charges based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. Even though the Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” the Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called “act-of-production doctrine.” Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence, however, examining a wide range of historical materials on the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment. He concluded that the Constitution should protect against the “compelled production not just of incriminating testimony, but of any incriminating evidence.”

The court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable particularity. However, it also ruled that if the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, the government may use them to prepare criminal charges against him. Oral arguments were heard February 22, 2000, and the court announced its decision on June 5, holding the policy unconstitutional by a 8-1 decision.