## Facts

- A Texas municipality filed a civil action seeking to enjoin a newsstand operator from selling allegedly obscene magazines and to compel surrender of certain publications.
- The municipality issued a subpoena duces tecum directing the operator to produce specified magazine titles and testify.
- The operator’s attorney advised moving to quash and, if ordered to comply, refusing production on Fifth Amendment grounds because the same statutory scheme also permitted criminal prosecution for distribution of obscene materials.
- The state trial judge denied the motion to quash, ruled the privilege inapplicable in the civil proceeding, and ordered compliance.
- The operator, following counsel’s advice, refused to produce the magazines and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
- The trial judge held both the operator and his attorney in criminal contempt and imposed sanctions; subsequent state review left a contempt judgment in place as to the attorney.
- A federal district court granted habeas relief, and the Supreme Court reviewed the contempt judgment against the attorney.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted in a civil proceeding to resist compelled production of materials that may tend to incriminate the witness.
2. Whether an attorney may be held in criminal contempt for advising a client, in good faith, to refuse compliance with a subpoena duces tecum on Fifth Amendment grounds.
3. Whether post-compliance remedies (such as later suppression) are an adequate substitute for allowing assertion of the privilege before compelled production.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the contempt judgment against the attorney.
- The Court held that an attorney is not subject to contempt for advising a client, in good faith, to refuse production demanded by subpoena when counsel reasonably believes compliance may incriminate the client.
- The Court reaffirmed that the Fifth Amendment privilege applies in civil proceedings when compelled disclosure poses a realistic risk of criminal prosecution.
- The Court rejected the argument that the witness should comply first and litigate suppression later, emphasizing that compelled disclosure may cause irreparable harm once the material is produced.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked in any proceeding—civil or criminal—when compelled testimony or production could furnish a link in the chain of evidence leading to criminal liability.
- The privilege must be practically effective; advice of counsel is part of the protection because a witness often cannot assess self-incrimination risks without legal guidance.
- Contempt power cannot be used to punish counsel for reasonable, good-faith advice to assert constitutional rights, absent willful obstruction or contumacious conduct.
- Where compelled production may create irreversible consequences, the availability of later suppression may be an inadequate safeguard, supporting protection at the point of compulsion.
- A reasonable basis for fear of prosecution supports good-faith invocation of the privilege, including where the same conduct subject to civil process is also subject to criminal penalties.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Fifth Amendment applies to compelled production in civil proceedings when there is a reasonable risk of criminal prosecution and that courts may not impose contempt sanctions on an attorney for good-faith advice to a client to assert the privilege and refuse compliance with a subpoena duces tecum.


Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975)