A federal grand jury was investigating "john Doe," president and sole shareholder of "XYZ" corporation, concerning possible violations of federal securities and money-laundering statutes. During the investigation, the governmentlearned that XYZ had paid he billsfor varioustelephone lines, including those used in Doe's homes and car. Grand jury subpoenas caling for the production of documents were then served on the custodian of XYZ's corporate records, on Doe, and on the law firm Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul-Weiss), which represented Doe. These subpoenas sought production of telephone bills, records, and statements of accountregarding certain telephone numbers, including those used by Doe. the district court determined after an evidentiary hearing that the documents sought were XYZ's, and not Doe's.

please help me respond to this with three paragraphs, its much needed help. take whatever time, thanks. paragraph is counted as 3 full sentences or more.

Each response will be graded according to the following rubric:

Is the answer correct as it discusses the relevant law?

complete,

analysis, including alternate scenarios, additional thoughts, and direct correlation between the answer and the question?

well organized?

enough content to demonstrate understanding of the topic?

spelling and grammar, and have good sentence structure?

------------------------------------------------------

Fifth Amendment

The fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the proper to a private to not be a witness against itself in criminal cases.

Facts of the case

A federal jury investigating Person J and his company-issued subpoenas calling for the document of him, his XYZ Corporation, and law firm P-Ws which was appointed by him.

The jury sought out the documents and found out that the provider of the document was of XYZ Corporation's but not Person J's. P-Ws which had a copy of those documents received to submit them arguing that they are exempted to do so by Person J's privilege against self-incrimination.

Conclusion

The fifth Amendment rights are applicable in the cases of individual people but not for the corporation. Besides it also person J, not a bar/protects any corporation to not disclose any information in the possibility of incrimination against another person.

The U.S, the court for the second circuit put forward the above-mentioned fact and the appellate court agreed with the lower court's determination. They agreed that if the search in the documents leads to the incrimination of Person J then it can't be considered as self-incrimination as the documents belong to the corporation and not Person J.

Also, the privilege opposing self-incrimination extends only to testimonial communication. Had the documents been of Person J himself he would still have an obligation to submit the documents in the response to the issued subpoenas.

what are you asking?