Arndstein v. McCarthy

Background

A man adjudged an involuntary bankrupt, Arndstein, was examined under § 21-a by Special Commissioners and refused to answer many questions, claiming the right against self-incrimination. A District Judge earlier accepted that claim and denied punishment. Later, under the court’s direction, the bankrupt filed sworn schedules listing his assets and debts. When asked about those schedules, he again invoked the constitutional privilege and refused to answer many questions, and he was jailed. A lower court denied his habeas corpus petition on the ground that filing the schedules had waived his privilege.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether filing sworn bankruptcy schedules by itself removes the protection against being forced to give testimony that could incriminate a person. The Justices held that the schedules alone were not an admission of guilt or clear proof of a crime, and merely filing them did not strip the person of the right to refuse answers that might incriminate. The opinion relied on earlier cases and emphasized that a statutory provision that bars use of testimony in criminal trials does not prevent that testimony from helping investigators find other evidence. The Supreme Court concluded the lower court was wrong, that the writ should have issued, and reversed and remanded the case.

Real world impact

The decision protects people in bankruptcy from automatic loss of the right to remain silent simply because they filed sworn asset lists. Courts may not jail someone for refusing to answer questions that could incriminate them just because schedules were filed. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.