Henkel case study final paper

Serving hours from Credit Card to hold reservation.

Henkel case study final paper

In summoning witnesses, it is sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against them or laying a basis by a formal indictment. The examination of a witness before a grand jury is a "proceeding" within the meaning of the proviso to the general appropriation act of that no person shall be prosecuted on account of anything which he may testify in any proceeding under the Antitrust Law.

The word should receive as wide a construction as is necessary to protect the witness in his disclosures. The interdiction of the Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself, and does not apply if the criminality is taken away.

A witness is not excused from testifying before a grand jury under a statute which provides for immunity, because he may not be able, if subsequently indicted, to procure the evidence necessary to maintain his plea. The law takes no account of the practical difficulty which a party may have in procuring his testimony.

A witness cannot refuse to testify before a Federal grand jury in face of a Federal statute granting immunity from prosecution as to matters sworn to, because the immunity does not extend to prosecutions in a State court.

In granting immunity, the only danger to be guarded against is one within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty. The benefits of the Fifth Amendment are exclusively for a witness compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, and he cannot set them up on behalf of any other person or individual, or of a corporation of which he is an officer or employe.

The search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel the production upon a trial of documentary evidence through a subpoena duces tecum.

Henkel case study final paper

While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected Henkel case study final paper an immunity statute, a corporation is a creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its Henkel case study final paper.

There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State; and an officer of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a statute cannot plead the criminality of the corporation as a refusal to produce its books.

Franchises of a corporation chartered by a State are, so far as they involve questions of interstate commerce, exercised in subordination to the power of Congress to regulate such commerce; and while Congress may not have general visitatorial power over State corporations, its powers in vindication of its own laws are the same as if the corporation had been created by an act of Congress.

A corporation is but an association of individuals with a distinct name and legal entity, and, in organizing itself as a collective body, it waives no appropriate constitutional immunities, and, although it cannot refuse to produce its books and papers, it is entitled to immunity under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, and, where an examination of its books is not authorized by an act of Congress, a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of practically all of its books and papers is as indefensible as a search warrant would be if couched in similar terms.

Although the subpoena duces tecum may be too broad in its requisition, where the witness has refused to answer any question, or to produce any books or papers, this objection would not go to the validity of the order committing him for contempt. This was an appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court made June 18,dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner Hale to the custody of the marshal.

The proceeding originated in a subpoena duces tecum, issued April 28,commanding Hale to appear before the grand jury at a time and place named, to "testify and give evidence Page U.

All reports made or accounts rendered by these six companies or corporations to the principal company. Petitioner appeared before the grand jury in obedience to the subpoena, and, before being sworn, asked to be advised of the nature of the investigation in which he had been summoned; whether under any statute of the United States, and the specific charge, if any had been made, in order that he might learn whether or not the grand jury had any lawful right to make the inquiry, and also that he be furnished with a copy of the complaint, information, or proposed indictment upon which they were acting; that he had been informed that there was no action pending in the circuit court, as stated in the subpoena, and that the grand jury was investigating no specific charge against Page U.

He was thereupon advised by the assistant district attorney that this was a proceeding under the Sherman act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraint and monopolies; that, under the act ofamendatory thereof, no person could be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture on account of any matter or thing concerning which he might testify or produce documentary evidence in any prosecution under said act, and that he thereby offered and assured appellant immunity from punishment.

The witness still persisted in his refusal to answer all questions. He also declined to produce the papers and documents called for in the subpoena: Because it would have been a physical impossibility to have gotten them together within the time allowed. Because he was advised by counsel that he was under no legal obligations to produce anything called for by the subpoena.

Because they might tend to incriminate him. Whereupon the grand jury reported the matter to the court, and made a presentment that Hale was in contempt, and that the proper proceedings should be taken.

Thereupon all the parties appeared before the circuit judge, who directed the witness to answer the questions and produce the papers.

Appellant still persisting in his refusal, the circuit judge held him to be in contempt, and committed him to the custody of the marshal until he should answer the questions and produce the papers.

A writ of habeas corpus was thereupon sued out, and a hearing had before another judge of the same court, who discharged the writ and remanded the petitioner. Two issues are presented by the record in this case which are so far distinct as to require separate consideration.

They depend upon the applicability of different provisions of the Constitution, and, in determining the question of affirmance or reversal, should not be confounded.

The first of these involves the immunity of the witness from oral examination; the second, the legality of his action in refusing to produce the documents called for by the subpoena duces tecum. The appellant justifies his action in refusing to answer the Page U.

The first objection requires a definition of the word "charge" as used in this connection, which it is not easy to furnish. An accused person is usually charged with crime by a complaint made before a committing magistrate, which has fully performed its office when the party is committed or held to bail, and is quite unnecessary to the finding of an indictment by a grand jury, or by an information of the district attorney, which is of no legal value in prosecutions for felony, or by a presentment, usually made, as in this case, for an offense committed in the presence of the jury, or by an indictment which, as often as not, is drawn after the grand jury has acted upon the testimony.

If another kind of charge be contemplated, when and by whom must it be preferred? Must it be in writing, and, if so, in what form? Or may it be oral? The suggestion of the witness, that he should be furnished with a copy of such charge, if applicable to him, is applicable to other witnesses summoned before the grand jury.

Indeed, it is a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacquainted, and one which might involve a betrayal of the secrets of the grand jury room. Under the ancient English system, criminal prosecutions were instituted at the suit of private prosecutors, to which the King lent his name in the interest of the public peace and good order of society.

In such cases, the usual practice was to prepare the proposed indictment and lay it before the grand jury for their consideration.

There was much propriety in this, as the most valuable function of the grand jury was not only to examine into the commission of crimes, but to stand between the prosecutor and the accused, and to determine whether the charge was founded upon credible testimony or was dictated by malice or personal ill will.

We are pointed to no case, however, holding that a grand jury Page U.Description Market Research Best Practice is a compilation of the best discussion papers, case studies and methodologies from the ESOMAR publishing and event programme over the last decade and more.

Market research is adapting to an increasingly competitive, demanding and globalised business world and, as the world’s leading market research organisation, ESOMAR is providing the . Henkel has undertaken its own study, supported by a team of certified toxicologists, the accredited Henkel Corporate Analytical Center as well as third party laboratories.

Browse thousands of essays from our giant database of academic papers. Find assignments like Marketing.

The legal system has a crucial preventive and corrective role to play regarding environmental damage. To this end, together with measures adopted in other legal areas such as administrative, criminal or civil law, both public and private.

Henkel case study final paper

Conference Schedule,Topics LATAM Surfactants HPC Markets Jun, at Mexico City. Historical Note. Matthew J. Wayner was a professor of neurobiology at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

He became a faculty member with UTSA in .

IT Executive Circle