|
Hale, secretary and treasurer of the MacAndrews and Forbes Company, was issued by a
grand jury a subpoena duces tecum. Hale was informed there were no charges pending and that the
investigation centered around the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the American Tobacco Company and the
MacAndrews-Forbes Company.
Hale brought no papers on three grounds: First, because it would have been a physical impossibility
to have gotten them together within the time allowed. Second, because he was advised by counsel that he
was under no legal obligations to produce anything called for by the subpoena. Third, because they might
tend to incriminate him.
Hale was found in contempt of court and committed to the custody of the marshal until he should
answer the questions and produce the papers. The Supreme Court responded to petition for writ of habeas
corpus and proceeded to address two questions: the immunity of the witness from oral examination,
and the legality of his action in refusing to produce the documents called for by the subpoena duces
tecum. The Court distinguished the difference between the private individual and the corporation, as
well as the difference in the rights and privileges for both.
Full text: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S.
43 (1906) |