Hale v. Henkel

Hale v. Henkel
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 4 & 5, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906
Full case name	Edwin F. Hale, Appt., v. William Henkel, United States Marshall
Citations	201 U.S. 43 (more) 26 S.Ct. 370; 50 L.Ed. 652
Prior history	Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern District of New York
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority	Brown, joined by Harlan, White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, Day
Concurrence	Harlan
Concurrence	McKenna
Dissent	Brewer, joined by Fuller
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. IV, V

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), was a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the power of a federal grand jury engaged in an investigation into corporate malfeasance to require the corporation in question to surrender its records.

Edwin F. Hale, the petitioner, was the treasurer of MacAndrews and Forbes. Founded in 1850, MacAndrews and Forbes was one of six companies that were under investigation for price fixing of tobacco in violation of the Sherman Act.

In 1906, U.S. government prosecutors served a grand jury subpoena on Hale, demanding that he testify and turn over corporate documents. Hale appeared before the jury but refused to reply to questions or to produce documents. On his company's behalf, he invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege and was held in contempt. Hale then hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit, which ultimately came before the Supreme Court.

Hale's argument was that a grand jury cannot require persons representing corporations to testify or demand that they produce documents without first explaining which charges are being investigated. In a majority opinion written by Justice Henry B. Brown, the Court rejected Hale's argument, maintaining that a grand jury can examine witnesses and demand documentary evidence in connection with a probe into possible crimes without having to identify the scope of its investigation. The Court then rejected Hale's privilege claim, ruling that the self-incrimination privilege provided to citizens by the Fifth Amendment did not apply to corporations.

In short, the Court held that corporate employees cannot assert the privilege against self-incrimination on behalf of their employer; the Fifth Amendment guarantee “protects individual civil liberties, not economic business interests.” The principle that “corporations and other collective entities are treated differently from individuals” under the Fifth Amendment is called the “collective entity” rule.