Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Hale v. Henkel

Supreme Court of the United States · 1906 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureGrand JurySelf-IncriminationSubpoena Duces TecumFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentCorporate Recordsgrand jury inquisitorial power

Facts

Hale was summoned before a federal grand jury investigating matters involving the American Tobacco Company and the MacAndrews-Forbes Company under the anti-trust laws. He refused to answer questions on the grounds that no specific charge was pending and that his answers might incriminate him. He also refused to produce corporate books and papers demanded by a subpoena duces tecum, asserting practical inability, advice of counsel, and self-incrimination concerns. The subpoena sought a broad range of contracts, correspondence, reports, and accounts involving the MacAndrews-Forbes Company and numerous other companies over an extended period.

Issue

Whether a grand jury may compel a witness to testify without a previously filed formal charge or indictment, and whether Hale could refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds despite a federal immunity statute. Also, whether he could refuse production of corporate documents demanded by a sweeping subpoena duces tecum on constitutional grounds.

Rule

A grand jury may examine witnesses and investigate whether a crime has been committed without a formal presentment or indictment first drawn, so long as the witness is apprised of the parties about whom he will testify. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply where a statute gives absolute immunity from prosecution, penalty, or forfeiture for the matters testified to, and the privilege is personal to the witness and cannot be asserted on behalf of a corporation. Although a corporation cannot refuse production of its books on self-incrimination grounds, a subpoena duces tecum may violate the Fourth Amendment if it is unreasonably sweeping and insufficiently particular.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal grand jury in Chicago begins investigating possible bid-rigging in municipal supply contracts. It subpoenas Nina Patel, a bookkeeper for Lakefront Utility Services, and tells her only that she will be questioned about Lakefront and two named vendors; no indictment, complaint, or written charge has yet been filed against anyone.

Nina refuses to answer any questions solely because no formal accusation is pending. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a grand jury may proceed on its own knowledge or on information developed through witness examination to determine whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed. Examination of witnesses need not be preceded by a presentment or indictment formally drawn, and it is enough that the witness is apprised of the parties about whom she will testify. Nina therefore cannot refuse solely because no formal accusation is pending.