## Facts

- A federal grand jury issued a subpoena to Jacqueline Schofield requiring her to provide photographs, fingerprints, and handwriting exemplars.
- The government sought enforcement and submitted an affidavit stating the grand jury was investigating possible perjury and false-declarations offenses within its jurisdiction.
- The affidavit stated Schofield had been advised she was a potential defendant and that the requested materials would be compared with checks to determine whether she had committed forgery.
- Schofield refused to comply, arguing the affidavit lacked enough detail to show relevance and that the government already possessed the requested (or equivalent) materials.
- The district court found the affidavit sufficient, enforced the subpoena without additional evidentiary proceedings, and, after continued refusal, held Schofield in civil contempt and ordered confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a).
- Schofield appealed the contempt order.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s affidavit made the required preliminary showing that the subpoenaed items were relevant to an investigation within the grand jury’s jurisdiction and not sought primarily for an improper purpose.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by enforcing the subpoena based on the affidavit alone and declining to conduct additional proceedings.
3. Whether civil contempt confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) was proper after refusal to comply with a valid enforcement order.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed enforcement of the subpoena and the civil contempt order.
- The court held the affidavit satisfied the required minimal showing regarding relevance, jurisdiction, and proper purpose.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining further inquiry or an evidentiary hearing.
- Because the subpoena was properly enforced, confinement under § 1826(a) was an authorized coercive sanction for continued noncompliance.

## Legal Principles

- A district court must exercise supervisory oversight when enforcing grand jury subpoenas and may not mechanically enforce them.
- When the government seeks judicial enforcement of a grand jury subpoena, it must submit a preliminary affidavit showing each item sought is at least relevant to a grand jury investigation within its jurisdiction and not sought primarily for another purpose.
- The required affidavit showing is minimal and ordinarily may be satisfied by affidavit alone; additional proceedings are discretionary and generally warranted only upon a substantial indication of abuse or unreasonableness.
- After the government makes the minimal affidavit showing, the witness bears the burden to demonstrate abuse of process, improper purpose, or unreasonable oppression.
- If a subpoena is validly enforced, continued refusal to comply supports civil contempt and coercive confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), subject to statutory limits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of a grand jury subpoena for identification and handwriting materials and affirmed civil contempt confinement because the government’s affidavit minimally established relevance, jurisdiction, and proper purpose, and the witness failed to show abuse or a need for additional proceedings.


In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Schofield II), 507 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1975)