In Re a Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Clark

461 F. Supp. 1149, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13878
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 12, 1978
DocketM-11-188 (MP)
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 461 F. Supp. 1149 (In Re a Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re a Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Clark, 461 F. Supp. 1149, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13878 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

POLLACK, District Judge.

This is a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena served on Lucy Clark for the purpose of giving handwriting exemplars in connection with an investigation concerning her husband. Mrs. Clark objects to the subpoena on the ground that it violates her marital privilege to refuse to testify against her husband.

The rule in the federal courts is that a spouse may not testify against the other. See Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958). The rule does not prohibit giving non-testimonial evidence against a spouse nor otherwise generally protect one spouse from being used as the source of evidence against the other. The Supreme Court has held that handwriting exemplars are neither communicative nor testimonial, and thus are outside the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). The purpose for the marital privilege — to foster family *1150 peace and trust — does not require a holding that handwriting exemplars are testimonial in this context. Therefore, the marital privilege does not prohibit the compulsion of exemplars from a spouse in connection with a grand jury investigation concerning the other spouse. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Rovner, 377 F.Supp. 954 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d mem., 500 F.2d 1400 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1106, 95 S.Ct. 776, 42 L.Ed.2d 802 (1975); State v. Henderson, 268 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa 1978).

Accordingly, the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alexander v. State
759 So. 2d 411 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Shelleda
666 F. Supp. 196 (D. Colorado, 1987)
United States v. McKeon
558 F. Supp. 1243 (E.D. New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
461 F. Supp. 1149, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-a-grand-jury-subpoena-served-on-clark-nysd-1978.