Braswell v. United States

101 L. Ed. 2d 98 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

Facts

From 1965 to 1980, Randy Braswell operated his business as a sole proprietorship. In 1980, he incorporated Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc., and in 1981, he formed Worldwide Purchasing, Inc., funding it with his 100% interest in Worldwide Machinery. Braswell is the sole shareholder of Worldwide Purchasing, Inc., and both companies are active Mississippi corporations. While his wife and mother are directors, they have no authority over business affairs. In August 1986, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena to "Randy Braswell, President Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc. [and] Worldwide Purchasing, Inc.," requiring him to produce the books and records of the two corporations. The subpoena did not require him to testify. Braswell moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the act of producing the records would incriminate him in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Issue

The question presented is whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Holding

The Court concluded that a corporate records custodian may not resist a subpoena for corporate records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

Rule

The collective entity rule dictates that corporations and other collective entities are treated differently from individuals for Fifth Amendment purposes. A corporate custodian holds documents in a representative capacity, not a personal one, and their act of production is deemed an act of the corporation. Therefore, any Fifth Amendment privilege asserted by the agent would be a claim by the corporation, which possesses no such privilege. While the government may not make evidentiary use of the individual act of production against the custodian, it may use the corporation's act of production to establish that the corporation produced authentic records it possessed. The jury may infer the defendant's possession or knowledge of contents based on his prominent position and the corporation's production.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.