Haner v. United States

Background

A federal grand jury in Oregon was investigating an alleged fraudulent funding scheme involving Allstates Funding, Inc. The company’s president appeared under a subpoena for documents and refused to answer questions about the nature of corporate records, claiming that answering would incriminate him. The District Court ruled he could not use the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid describing the records, and a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel affirmed that ruling.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a witness can refuse to describe what kinds of business records a corporation kept without a real risk of self-incrimination. The circuit justice reviewed past decisions and agreed with the lower courts that the privilege protects against real dangers, not speculative or remote possibilities. He noted prior cases that limit the privilege when answers merely identify or describe documents already produced. Given the general nature of the questions about the types of records, he concluded the lower courts properly balanced the privilege and found it unlikely that four Justices would agree to review the case.

Real world impact

The justice denied the application to pause the contempt order, so the civil contempt commitment remained in effect while the petitioner seeks further review. The ruling affects corporate officers called before grand juries by making it harder to refuse simple descriptions of company records. The petition was also criticized as deficient for not stating the precise wording of the questioned inquiry.