Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Foregone Conclusion Doctrine (Act of Production)
Leading case
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)
How courts have described it
characterizing a foregone conclusion as one where the evidence “adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information”
United States v. Alexander Oriho, 969 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2020)
no constitutional protection where information is a “foregone conclusion” from other sources
Aviation Supply Corporation v. R.S.B.I. Aerospace, Inc., Ross Barber, 999 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1993)
holding that because the existence and location of subpoenaed documents are a “foregone conclusion,” their production, although testimonial, is not incriminating and is hence not privileged
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of William A. Ranauro, 814 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1987)
"existence [is] a foregone conclusion [because] the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the government’s information by conceding that he has the papers"
United States v. Hubbell, 11 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1998)
holding that a taxpayer’s production of his accountant’s workpapers was not testimonial because their existence and authenticity were a foregone conclusion
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 F.R.D. 357 (D. Minn. 1992)
finding that to succeed, the government must show that the sought after information is a “foregone conclusion” in that it “adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information.”
Commonwealth v. Davis, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2019)
Related doctrines
- Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled production of private papers
- Foregone Conclusion Rationale — Prior Knowledge Limitation
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.