[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by rentiap

WoW!!
And I thought that it wasn't possible for there to be an honest black queen *Judge* (IE It is my opinion that anyone wearing a black dress to be a queen)My faith is renewed.
At least in this case

Cheers,
Craig.

Seriously.
Thank you Free-martha.
This is great info.
copied and saved in my archive.

I agree. Thank you free_martha!

U.S. Supreme Court
MANESS v. MEYERS, 419 U.S. 449 (1975)
419 U.S. 449
MANESS v. MEYERS, JUDGE.
CERTIORARI TO THE 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS, BELL COUNTY.

No. 73-689.

Argued October 22, 1974.
Decided January 15, 1975.



A lawyer is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, during the trial of a civil case, to refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds to produce material demanded by a subpoena duces tecum when the lawyer believes in good faith that the material may tend to incriminate his client. To hold otherwise would deny the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination the means of its own implementation, since when a witness is so advised the advice becomes an integral part of the protection accorded the witness by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 458-470.


(a) That the client in any ensuing criminal action could move to suppress the subpoenaed material after it had been produced does not afford adequate protection, because without something more "he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee," Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 . United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251 , distinguished. Pp. 461-463.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=419+&page=449