Legal Opinion

Jung Chul Park v. Cangen Corp.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 27, 2010No. 152, Sept. Term, 2008PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarbera, J.

This case involves the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, based on the command of the Fifth Amendment that “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself----” U.S. Const, amend. V. We are asked to determine whether a former employee of a corporation is entitled to invoke the privilege in response to a *509subpoena duces tecum commanding him to produce corporate documents. We hold, by application of the “collective entity doctrine,” see, e.g., Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 2284, 101 L.Ed.2d 98 (1988), that the…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  4. Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  5. Lefkowitz v. TurleySupreme Court of the United States · 1973

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. 109OAG3, Maryland Attorney General Reports2024
  2. Jung Chul Park v. Cangen Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API