Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortattorneytrialpatentcorporationself-incriminationseizuregrand jury
tortattorneytrialpatentcorporationself-incriminationseizuregrand jury

Related Cases

Dunton v. Suffolk County, State of N.Y., 729 F.2d 903
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Larson, 103 Wash.2d 517, 694 P.2d 1051
View Case »
Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Hundley, 102 Conn.App. 490, 925 A.2d 1161
View Case »
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal.4th 807, 171 P.3d 1092, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,234, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,307
View Case »
Fausek v. White, 965 F.2d 126, 35 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1225
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Perlman v. U.S., 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950

Facts

Louis H. Perlman, the inventor of a demountable rim, was involved in a patent infringement suit against the Standard Welding Company, which he won. He later assigned his patent to the Perlman Rim Corporation but retained ownership of certain exhibits used in the trial. When the corporation sued the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for infringement, the exhibits were impounded by court order. Subsequently, the United States attorney sought possession of these exhibits for a grand jury investigation into Perlman, leading him to file a petition to prevent their use.

Louis H. Perlman, the inventor of a demountable rim, was involved in a patent infringement suit against the Standard Welding Company, which he won. He later assigned his patent to the Perlman Rim Corporation but retained ownership of certain exhibits used in the trial. When the corporation sued the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for infringement, the exhibits were impounded by court order. Subsequently, the United States attorney sought possession of these exhibits for a grand jury investigation into Perlman, leading him to file a petition to prevent their use.

Issue

Did the court err in denying Perlman's petition to restrain the United States attorney from using the exhibits in a grand jury investigation, thereby violating his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Did the court err in denying Perlman's petition to restrain the United States attorney from using the exhibits in a grand jury investigation, thereby violating his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Rule

The court applied principles regarding unreasonable seizure and self-incrimination, emphasizing that ownership of property does not grant immunity from its use as evidence in legal proceedings once it has been voluntarily presented in court.

The court applied principles regarding unreasonable seizure and self-incrimination, emphasizing that ownership of property does not grant immunity from its use as evidence in legal proceedings once it has been voluntarily presented in court.

Analysis

The court found that Perlman had voluntarily presented the exhibits as evidence in previous legal proceedings, which meant he could not later claim a right to suppress their use by the government. The court distinguished Perlman's case from others involving unlawful searches or seizures, noting that there was no compulsion or extortion involved in the original presentation of the exhibits. Thus, the exhibits had become part of the judicial records and could be used by the government without violating Perlman's rights.

The court found that Perlman had voluntarily presented the exhibits as evidence in previous legal proceedings, which meant he could not later claim a right to suppress their use by the government. The court distinguished Perlman's case from others involving unlawful searches or seizures, noting that there was no compulsion or extortion involved in the original presentation of the exhibits. Thus, the exhibits had become part of the judicial records and could be used by the government without violating Perlman's rights.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's order, allowing the United States attorney to use the exhibits in the grand jury investigation against Perlman.

The court affirmed the lower court's order, allowing the United States attorney to use the exhibits in the grand jury investigation against Perlman.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court ruled that Perlman had relinquished his rights to the exhibits by presenting them as evidence in prior proceedings.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court ruled that Perlman had relinquished his rights to the exhibits by presenting them as evidence in prior proceedings.

You must be