◆ SpookStack

‘Memorandum ~~ a - To: The Director Date 9/22/83 From Legal counse fe / Subject: 4" --C@URT.INVOLVING FBI INVESTIGATIONS T. no 4 — Reference is made to recent MAOP changes (Part II, [ Section 4-5) wherein the Legal Instruction Unit assumes respo bility for monitoring the U.S,upreme court} docket and for reporting on the status of lower court decisions in FBI cases wherein certiorari has been granted. During the Supreme Court's 1982-83 term, certiorari was granted in three FBI cases. None has been decided. The cases have been deferred until the 1983-84 term of court. The are: _ tr ve-s20Q- 2 TSES 1) Matter of Grand Jur 680 F.2d 327 ( Cir. , cert. granted sub nom., Unite States v. Doe, 51 U.S.L.W. 3785 (May 2, 1983), docket #82-786. This is a Hobbs Act investigation from the Newark Division. A sole proprietor of a business successfully invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to resist disclosure of business-related records pursuant to a federal grand jury's subpoena duces tecum. The government appealed while the case was still in the investigative stage. presented: (1) May the Fifth Amendment privilege against com- pelled self-incrimination be invoked by a sole proprietor in response to a subpoena for preexisting business records, many of which were not prepared by him and are of the type kept by virtually all businesses? (2) May a person properly resist compliance with subpoena duces tecum on the ground that act of si- f Ao Empanelled March 19, vasa’ Exec AD Adm. Enes AD tev, ____. Exes AD LES Aas Duns ~ Adu, Crim, lee, ident, Insp. aang larell. Leb. Lege! Coun. OH. Cong. & Public Affe, Res. Mgnt. Teck. Servs. —___. Troining Talaphone Rm. Director's Sec'y Se an — Questions production would be self-incriminating, despite the _goveynmert4s offer of the functional equivalent of use immuni 1 respect to act of production? oct eu Se 2) United States v. Martino, 681 F.2d 952 (Sth Cir, 1982) (en banc), cert. granted sub nom., Russello-¥-Ufited States, 51 U.S.L.W. 3508 (Jan. 10, 1983) , docket ~472, This appeal stems from a conviction in a RICO case from the Tampa Division. The court of appeals held that profits and income from an arson-for-insurance-profit scheme, and not just the interest in the enterprise, are subject to forfeiture 1-Mr. Colwell 1-Mr. Davis 1 1-Me. OL ggQeE 4 >My. Youn # \piar * ane Fal/ DoJ oth le ae