Braswell v. United States Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The sole shareholder of a corporation was subpoenaed for corporate records. He claimed the act of producing the records would incriminate him, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The Court held that a corporate records custodian cannot resist a subpoena on personal Fifth Amendment grounds.
Legal Significance: This case firmly establishes that the “collective entity” doctrine prevents a corporate records custodian from invoking a personal Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for the act of producing corporate records, even if that act is testimonial and incriminating, based on an agency rationale.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Randy Braswell was the sole shareholder and president of two corporations. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena to Braswell in his capacity as president, demanding production of the corporations’ books and records. Braswell moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the act of producing the documents would have testimonial significance that would incriminate him personally, thus violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He contended that the “act of production” privilege recognized in Fisher v. United States and United States v. Doe should apply to him, even though the records belonged to the corporations. The government argued that the long-standing “collective entity” doctrine prevented Braswell, as a corporate custodian, from asserting a personal Fifth Amendment privilege regarding the act of production. The District Court denied Braswell’s motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a custodian of corporate documents has no act of production privilege. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May the custodian of corporate records resist a subpoena for those records on the ground that the act of producing them would incriminate him personally in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
No. A corporate records custodian cannot resist a subpoena for corporate records Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May the custodian of corporate records resist a subpoena for those records on the ground that the act of producing them would incriminate him personally in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the agency rationale for the collective entity rule, confirming Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
Legal Rule
A custodian of corporate records may not resist a subpoena for such Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repre
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the enduring vitality of the "collective entity" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A custodian of corporate records cannot invoke their personal Fifth Amendment