In Re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Possible Violation of Title 26 U.S. Code, Section 7201. Allen Speiser, Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Intervenor, 362 F.2d 942 (3rd Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Possible Violation of Title 26 U.S. Code, Section 7201. Allen Speiser, Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Intervenor, 362 F.2d 942 (3rd Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Howard Bodenhamer v. New York Mercantile Exchange, in Re Commodity Futures Trading Commission (ca2, 1979-01-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Howard Bodenhamer v. New York Mercantile Exchange, in Re Commodity Futures Trading Commission
2d Cir. · 1979 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Parsons, 561 F.2d 671 (7 Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1521 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978) with In re Grand Jury Proceedings Concerning Jaskiewicz, 362 F.2d 942 (3 Cir. 1966) The Commission might be able to make a better case for appealability if, when Dr. Powers is called, the Exchange should seek to press the questions to which the Commission objects and Dr. Powers should indicate unwillingness to follow the instructions of Commission counsel, but see note 9 Infra.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange
2d Cir. · 1979 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Parsons, 561 F.2d 671 (7 Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 942 , 98 S.Ct. 1521 , 55 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978) with In re Grand Jury Proceedings Concerning Jaskiewicz, 362 F.2d 942 (3 Cir. 1966).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Possible Violation of Title 26 U.S. Code, Section 7201. Allen Speiser, Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Intervenor
15909_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jul 5, 1966.
362 F.2d 942
Published

362 F.2d 942

66-2 USTC P 9582

In re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Frank A.
JASKIEWICZ, Possible Violation of Title 26 U.S.
Code, Section 7201.
Allen Speiser, Appellant, Frank A. Jaskiewicz, Intervenor.

No. 15909.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 13, 1966.
Decided July 5, 1966.

Norman C. Henss, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Allen Speiser.

Leonard Sarner, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant intervenor Jaskiewicz.

J. Shane Creamer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

The appellant, a certified public accountant, was subpoenaed to appear before a duly impanelled grand jury engaged in the investigation of possible violations of 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code (1954) 26 U.S.C.A. by the intervenor. He appeared and answered certain questions but refused to answer others on the ground that the disclosure of the information sought would violate the accountant-client privilege protected by the provisions of the Pennsylvania statute, 63 P.S. 9.11a. This claim of privilege was asserted on instructions from the intervenor, the appellant's client.

2

The appellant, represented by counsel, appeared before the court below at the direction of the United States Attorney. After a hearing the court held the local statute inapplicable to criminal proceedings under federal law and ordered the appellant to answer the questions. This appeal followed immediately although there was neither a refusal to obey the court's order nor an adjudication in contempt.

3

The only question raised on this appeal concerns the applicability of the Pennsylvania statute. Although urged to do so by the intervenor and the Government, we do not reach the question because in our opinion the order was interlocutory and not appealable. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Directory Services, Inc. v. United States, 353 F.2d 299 (8th Cir. 1965). Cf. DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 82 S.Ct. 654, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962), in which the Court held that the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence was interlocutory and not appealable in the absence of a final judgment in the criminal action. See also United States v. Blue, 86 S.Ct. 1416 (May 23, 1966).

4

The case of Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), relied upon by the Government, is clearly distinguishable. Cobbledick v. United States, supra, 309 U.S. 328, 60 S.Ct. 540. This is also true of Overby v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 224 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1955), relied on by the intervenor.

5

This appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.