The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Bankruptcy and the Plight of the Debtor

Timothy R. Tarvin
{"title":"The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Bankruptcy and the Plight of the Debtor","authors":"Timothy R. Tarvin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2330402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An innocent debtor, who is either ignorant of her constitutional right to the privilege against self-incrimination or ineffectual in asserting it, may find herself wrongfully convicted and imprisoned in a criminal matter, due to unwitting complicity in the delivery of testimony or documents in her bankruptcy case. This lack of understanding poses a serious risk to debtors, and especially affects the increasing number of pro se debtors in bankruptcy. The privilege extends to debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. However, a debtor who fails to properly invoke the privilege waives her rights. This possibility is made more probable because there is no requirement that she be told about the privilege prior to filing or interrogation.Without any requirement of notice, there is no application of the exclusionary rule in civil proceedings. In short, the privilege must be invoked through an unambiguous assertion in bankruptcy, or it is lost. For this reason, the Court, under its rulemaking authority, should adopt a revised Official Form B201A for use in consumer bankruptcy cases, to ensure the just determination of every case and protect the debtor’s privilege. The revised form would provide pre-filing notice, in writing, of the privilege against self-incrimination. To accomplish this, the Judicial Conference of the United States should promulgate the proposed form pursuant to its rulemaking authority. This form would serve to make the debtor aware of the privilege prior to filing and the consequences of invocation and waiver, so that the privilege would not be lost through ignorance, inadvertence, or lack of competent counsel. This article has four parts. Part I analyzes the scope and application of the privilege and distinguishes the privilege in bankruptcy from its counterpart in the custodial setting. Part II examines the increased risk to the pro se debtor and the value of the privilege both to the truly innocent who are seemingly guilty and the presumptively innocent regardless of guilt. Part III explores the plight of the debtor under current law and explains the risk of nondisclosure of the privilege. Finally, Part IV proposes a change in the language of Official Form B201A to alleviate the problems caused by nondisclosure. In short, the author’s thesis is that only through the pre-filing delivery of notice will the debtor's right to the privilege be meaningful.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2330402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An innocent debtor, who is either ignorant of her constitutional right to the privilege against self-incrimination or ineffectual in asserting it, may find herself wrongfully convicted and imprisoned in a criminal matter, due to unwitting complicity in the delivery of testimony or documents in her bankruptcy case. This lack of understanding poses a serious risk to debtors, and especially affects the increasing number of pro se debtors in bankruptcy. The privilege extends to debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. However, a debtor who fails to properly invoke the privilege waives her rights. This possibility is made more probable because there is no requirement that she be told about the privilege prior to filing or interrogation.Without any requirement of notice, there is no application of the exclusionary rule in civil proceedings. In short, the privilege must be invoked through an unambiguous assertion in bankruptcy, or it is lost. For this reason, the Court, under its rulemaking authority, should adopt a revised Official Form B201A for use in consumer bankruptcy cases, to ensure the just determination of every case and protect the debtor’s privilege. The revised form would provide pre-filing notice, in writing, of the privilege against self-incrimination. To accomplish this, the Judicial Conference of the United States should promulgate the proposed form pursuant to its rulemaking authority. This form would serve to make the debtor aware of the privilege prior to filing and the consequences of invocation and waiver, so that the privilege would not be lost through ignorance, inadvertence, or lack of competent counsel. This article has four parts. Part I analyzes the scope and application of the privilege and distinguishes the privilege in bankruptcy from its counterpart in the custodial setting. Part II examines the increased risk to the pro se debtor and the value of the privilege both to the truly innocent who are seemingly guilty and the presumptively innocent regardless of guilt. Part III explores the plight of the debtor under current law and explains the risk of nondisclosure of the privilege. Finally, Part IV proposes a change in the language of Official Form B201A to alleviate the problems caused by nondisclosure. In short, the author’s thesis is that only through the pre-filing delivery of notice will the debtor's right to the privilege be meaningful.
破产自证其罪特权与债务人的困境
一个无辜的债务人,如果不知道宪法赋予她的免于自证其罪的特权,或者不能有效地行使这一权利,可能会发现自己在刑事案件中被错误地定罪和监禁,因为她在破产案中不知情地提供了证词或文件。这种理解的缺乏给债务人带来了严重的风险,特别是影响到越来越多的破产债务人。这项特权也适用于破产程序中的债务人。然而,债务人未能适当地援引特权,则放弃其权利。这种可能性更有可能发生,因为没有要求她在提交文件或审讯之前被告知这项特权。在没有通知要求的情况下,在民事诉讼中不适用排除规则。简而言之,在破产中必须通过明确的主张来调用特权,否则就失去了特权。因此,法院应根据其制定规则的权力,采用修订后的官方表格B201A用于消费者破产案件,以确保每个案件的公正裁决并保护债务人的特权。修订后的表格将在提交前提供书面通知,告知当事人不自证其罪的特权。为此,美国司法会议应根据其制定规则的权力颁布拟议的形式。这种形式将使债务人在提交文件之前了解特权以及援引和放弃的后果,以便特权不会因无知、疏忽或缺乏合格的律师而丧失。本文共分为四个部分。第一部分分析了破产特权的范围和适用,并对破产特权与托管特权进行了区分。第二部分考察了自辩债务人的风险增加,以及对看似有罪的真正无辜者和假定无罪者的特权价值,无论有罪与否。第三部分探讨了现行法律下债务人的困境,并解释了保密特权的风险。最后,第四部分提出对官方表格B201A的语言进行修改,以缓解不披露所带来的问题。简而言之,作者的论点是,只有通过事前通知的送达,债务人的特权权利才有意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信