Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States (SCOTUS 1951)

Summary

The Supreme Court held that Rule 17(c) permits a criminal defendant to subpoena evidentiary documents in the government’s possession that were obtained by solicitation or voluntary informants, but the subpoena’s catch‑all clause requiring production of any material merely “relevant” to the indictment is invalid. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ reversal and remanded for the district court to modify the subpoena and refrain from holding the government attorney in contempt for the overbroad portion.

Holding

Whether Rule 17(c) authorizes a defendant to subpoena from the government documents obtained by solicitation or voluntary informants that are not subject to Rule 16.. Rule 17(c) does permit a defendant to subpoena evidentiary documents in the government’s possession that were obtained by solicitation or from voluntary informants, even though they are not covered by Rule 16.

Whether a subpoena clause that demands production of any material “relevant” to the indictment, regardless of evidentiary value, is valid under Rule 17(c).. The catch‑all clause of the subpoena that requires production of any material merely “relevant” to the indictment is invalid under Rule 17(c).

Whether a defendant may be held in contempt for refusing to produce portions of a subpoena that are beyond the scope authorized by Rule 17(c).. A defendant (or government attorney) cannot be held in contempt for refusing to produce material that falls outside the valid scope of a Rule 17(c) subpoena; the burden is on the court to trim the subpoena to its proper limits.

Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by