This article appeared in Business Crimes Bulletin, an ALM publication covering financial and white-collar crime for Corporate Counsel, Litigators, Managing Partners, Defense Attorneys. Visit the website to learn more.
A little over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court declined to extend the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to corporations responding to grand jury subpoenas for documents, establishing what has been termed the “collective entity doctrine.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-76 (1906) (corporate officer, who had been immunized in his individual capacity, attempted to assert Fifth Amendment right on behalf of his employer). Some Justices have expressed discomfort with the application of the collective entity doctrine to small corporations responding to grand jury subpoenas, and recent decisions by the Court have extended First Amendment rights to corporations that had previously been limited to individuals. These developments suggest that the Court, particularly with the arrival of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, might be receptive to reconsidering the scope of the collective entity doctrine, a rule whose principal virtue seems to be that it is a bright-line, particularly in the context of small, closely-held corporations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
