Bart v. United States

4:5 Amendment, Fitzpatrick. say I did or references to the when “Mr. I if if Fifth did, not, they I I it is are considered in full regardless did of what text and context. pry way, they not Considered in show the affair of committee to that realistic this Fitzpatrick invoking had into this kind action. no intention of privilege against Amendment’s self-incrimi- “Mr. for that reason do Wood. And judgment nation. I would affirmthe you question? decline to . Court. District Fitzpatrick. I on the “Mr. stand protection 'Constitution, say I am Judge authorized to PROCTOR First and Fifth Amendments. opinion; dissenting concurs Judge that, except CLARK also concurs “Mr. Wood. And for those reasons being opinion privi- claim of decline to answer the fur- lege personal a highly one and must be ther? by person made claiming it and not Fitzpatrick. “Mr. I have answered reference, judge he thinks trial question. right holding adopt could not you “Mr. Wood. I say, do decline to Fitzpatrick. statements of answer it further? Fitzpatrick.

“Mr. I no fur-

ther comment on it.” also,

In this Fitzpatrick instance made it

abundantly clear he was invoking not

two Amendments to giving avoid an in

criminating answer, but thought that he Amendments barred the from committee asking pry which would into BART v. UNITED STATES. his mind and would violate his constitution No. 11045. right al to be if silent an answer were compelled. I impossible find it regard Appeals United States Court of Fitzpatrick’s statements amounting to a District of Columbia Circuit. n claimto the immunity constitutional from Argued 6,Oct. self-incrimination. Measured the strict standards announced in the cases I have Decided Dec. n cited,by which language of a witness Rehearing Petition for Denied must be measured in determining whether April 15, 1953. actually intended to and did claim the privilege, Fitzpatrick’s fall statements far

short constituting such a claim. As the said, judge

trial they certainly leave much

to be desired. Emspak Cf.

(1952) conclude, I therefore, the district

judge only did in fact find that Fitz-

patrick did claim the privilege, but also amply that he was justified in finding, so

n despite that, Quinn’s fact after convic- tion, Fitzpatrick himself was found not

guilty by a different district judge, F.Supp. 491, who seems not to have con- Fitzpatrick’s

sidered statements “in full context,” acquitted

text but him solely

because he used the words “Fifth Amend- I ment.” impossible think it spell out

a claim the privilege Fitzpatrick’s from Many years

“Mr. ago. Bart: “Mr. Walter: Where?

“Mr. Bart: In the city of New York. you your “Mr. Walter: Did changed name in court? Yes; years

“Mr. Bart: about IS ago.” The next four counts of the indictment questions involved described as follows: Count Three. “What was the name of the defend- ant when he came to the United States.” C., Wright, Washington, T. D. James Count Four. appellant. for “What was the defendant’s father’s Lane, Atty., D. Asst. S. U. John name.” Irelan, Atty., whom Charles U. Mr. M. S. Count Five. Howard, Joseph Atty., M. Asst. U. S. C., Murray, Washington, D. and Charles B. “Under what name did the defend- brief, Gen., Atty. Asst. were for on ant’s father a become citizen of the appellee. George Fay, Atty., Morris U. S. United States.” C., Washington, D. when the record was Count Six. filed, ap appearance entered also “What name did the defendant pellee. change his name from.” PRETTYMAN, PROCTOR and Before questions When Bart was asked by these BAZELON, Judges. Circuit but, Subcommittee did he not answer instead, each time made reference to a PRETTYMAN, Judge. Circuit already example, statement made. For Philip thirty-two was indicted in Bart when he was asked what his father’s name for refusal to answer that number counts was, said, he already “I have dealt with questions by asked him a Subcommittee question.” apparently this This was a ref- Activ- of the Committee Un-American erence to an earlier “I statement that will Representatives. the House of Be- ities pertinent answer it is because it to during fore or the trial Government hearing.” questions After these four twenty-four of the counts. Bart abandoned 'him, said, had been “My asked answer eight first convicted counts of is that I have my answered what name is From conviction he the indictment. that here, which is the only pertaining counts, questions appeals. The and the in- inquiry, to it seems to me.” appears, It them, require somewhat different

volved therefore, position that Bart took the that disposition. consideration questions these four pertinent were not inquiry. upon questions One rest Counts and Two “Whether the defendant described thus: Upon argument the oral court, in this Philip was born under name of Bart” counsel for Bart point abandoned the defendant and “When the took name pertinent. were not these So-the Philip Bart.” It seems clear that Bart controversy posed now concerns naked re questions. those Without at- answered answer; is, fusals refusals without tempting recite all the incidents in legal justification. asserted Counsel takes quote that we record, is sufficient it one: position prosecution for contempt the Sub- lie “Mr. Walter will not for refusal to answer [Chairman these you legally questions, : When did because Bart was not by committee] directed your change name? answer Committee to after he had once (Amendment those cases concerned ever Chief were sáys that since refused. He Jus compelled to person is that shall be V) case1 Burr procedure Marshall’s tice testify against case. himself in universally followed criminal courts have pointed May As v. we out in United directing witness' practice of supra, problem says presented by guar He refusal answer. the initial after anty interests, the principle accepted involves two universally conflicting is that this ap sense, of the witness to refuse to answer right law, in common founded in importance public com to the congressional plies inquiries Eisele,2 sought. formation When the v. United States He cites mittees. duty May inquirer’s it States,3 claimed witness v. Graham ex “to whether he to dealt determine the Eisele case *But States.4 wishefs] United immunity testimony.”5 If an change testi for prosecution for immunity from with inquirer despite un wants information its had claimed the witness mony after given availability witness, must against self- the against privilege constitutional the immunity complete authority grant with to dealt case incrimination; the Graham authority and, the principally, the witness. He that to exercises privilege a claim of in But pass upon the the witness compelling to to answer. court duty a trial May happens empow Congress that case it has not involved; and the crimination necessary grant ered its committees to testimony. Those voluntary, cases involved immunity,6 they power and so have not the pertinent here. are compel incriminating There to evidence. Emspak in v. Unit held haveWe fore, a in con witness before them is not U.S.App.D.C. 378, 203 ed 91 tempt if he in reliance refuses to answer require 54, today, that decided there is no upon privilege, specific di even after a specific direction to answer be ment that a answer; provided to his claim rection that Emspak’s refusal to giyen after a answer. valid, privilege to the is a matter which necessity for was directed to the contention moment, we shall discuss in a and further specific an as direction to answer after provided priv that he has not waived the qf self- privilege against claim the serted ilege present asserting after it. Under stat upon rec was clear It incrimination. committees, relating congressional utes ord, question's, certainly as to some of the n . answer, conveying direction im no indisputably Emspak made aware that munity, way has no effect one or the other the Subcommittee the attitude of toward upon contempt, liability the witness’s for grounds re his for the his refusals except in so far itas serves to make certain contrary ; his counsel made no fusals indeed witness intends to refuse. respect. present In the contention empowered Congress The has in- problem in a recurs different the basic case example, for quirers, Ex- Securities and that reason we add to the For framework. Commission, change give immunity.7 In Emspak in the case. discussion contempt such cases a witness is if he upon the in reliance argument Bart’s refuses to answer an incriminating May) Graham and (Eisele, he cites cases being specifically after directed answer. In the the issue here. as to is confused to answer The direction after an assertion problem present place it confuses first conveys immunity. pros- immunity from problems of with upon testimony. argument admissibility Bart’s above-cited ecution problem which guaranty specific with also confuses oases constitutional The C.C.Va.1807, quoted Burr, 25 from Phrase States v. 5. United States v. 1. United supra 2, Eisele, F.Supp. 14,692e. page 38, note at No. Fed.Cas. 108. F.Supp. D.C.D.C.1943, 2. Bryan, 1950, 6. United States v. 339 U.S. 1938, F.2d 746. Cir. 323, 335-336, S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. 884. Eisele, supra; denied, United States v. 338 U.S. 48 Stat. certiorari (1934), 78u(d). U.S.C.A. § 94 L.Ed. S.Ct. problem de In States v. United Murdock13 the Su- to answer direction preme As we refuse to answer. Court ruled an authoritative liberate intent to States8 determination right United an asserted re- pointed in Townsend v. out States,9 fuse necessary prerequi- to answer Fields v. is not a repeated in United prosecution contempt refusal to an site to for willful failure to offense of “By very refusal answer. The and intentional Court swer a deliberate said: accident, inadvertence, or a terms of the an definition com- and not an the offense is interposes plete misunderstanding. If a witness at time failure.” of such Convic- propriety contempt a tion for objection query to the was there affirmed. The may pertinency, he not be record question, inquirer gave its showed that the g., e. both refusal, In event direction to answer after refusing to answer. such it but provision elementary justice statutory also showed fully that Murdock was made aware, aware, require made some that he be an extended discussion before the time, despite posi refusals, questioners method at some the intentions of his inquirer consequences that he shall answer and of the means tion of refusal to an- question. requirement not for swer contemplated their questions. That direction, terms, answer; specific it If flatly a witness and without subsequent may preliminary10 or a be in a purported explanation, justification ex or repetition quest , or a of the statement11 in cuse refuses or fails question answer a questioner If be counsel ion.12 the actual necessity there is repeat ques the authority, a inquiring instead of the or tion, him, or him, to coax per threaten it, (i. e., the member the attitude ac of him, suade press or duly him. A witness ceptance non-acceptance of the refusal or subpoenaed presumed and sworn is to know upon the of author grounds presented) elementary requirements the compli ity by prior may announce be made clear ance and the corresponding dangers of acquiescence ment by or ratification. or refusal to answer. phase of the matter must That be deter A witness does not insulate himself from mined from the circumstances. contempt by asserting a reason for a re a witness Whether means to refuse to answer, fusal to by or to the objecting question answer a to be determined is from question, or querying propriety. its the Like all circumstances. the element of deliberately When he intentionally ref question every intent in criminal case it is a uses to answer a ground, stated fact, jury, determinable the if there assumes the risk ground that the is un jury, appropriate abe under instruction and sound. This was the holding of the Su specific A by the court. direction definition preme Court in the Sinclair case.14 If he undoubtedly better, to answer is the more refuses to answer says because he the practice just likely the one most him, says answer would incriminate or make certain whether the witness is inten- question pertinent, says is not that the tionally refusing. told We are the question improper is because violative of Congress committees and subcommittees of guaranties, First Amendment he assumes pursuing now that course. are But the risk that court in a later proceeding a necessity, problem before us concerns not may find that his stated reason was not merely desirability. specific A direction valid, that the answer would not tend to necessary; intent to answer is to re- him, question incriminate or that the was necessary. to answer is fuse pertinent or was not violative of any con- App.D.C. 223, 1938, 229, 352, 8. 68 11. discussion infra. See 358, denied, 1938, 664, certiorari U.S. 303 Emspak supra. States, 12. See v. United 830, L.Ed. S.Ct. 1121. 82 141, 148, U.S. 52 S.Ct. U.S.App.D.C. 354, 357, 164 F. L.Ed. 210. 97, 100, denied, 1948, 2d certiorari Supra S.Ct. L.Ed. 421. note U.S. States, 1929, Sinclair v. United See 49 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed. 692. U.S. . appears Supreme clearly a It from the for moment. As guaranty stitutional fully record aware Rogers v. United that Bart made pointed out in Court every position subcommittee States,15 both of the must determine the court against possible consequences his self- and of the which the case refused ques refusal to answer. After he “whether had incrimination claimed danger fur involved in presented the four reasonable tion counts, cir of all these Chairman of the Sub- light crimination in ther suppose i committee said: “And then And to same effect I cumstances”. relating question s supra, you know under the law a Sinclair arbitrarily instances the innocent on its face can’t be pertinency. In both those contempt, ignored. You can’t to answer such refuse affirmed convictions for Court without, his as running risk of to be in error being held witness consequences.” And in that connection refusal.16 ground for serted Bart’s the Chairman also remarked con present in the is true that It Those counsel knew what the law was. immunity a wit statutes dition met the fully statements of the Chairman committee congressional ness before a requirements of law we have stated as risk he position, and the a difficult They them sufficient above. constitute evi- es- In court our is considerable. sumes justify dence that the refusal finding prompt, au provides a procedure tablished intentional, to answer deliberate 'and opportunity for ruling and thoritative they support general verdict thus position in to recanvass witness guilty. thing same ruling. The light case, hold, Emspak We as we held in the days when true in extent was to less supra, specific a direction to answer proceedings itself conducted Congress prerequisite not a to conviction for con- adopt Congress contempt But against it. tempt. of referring charges practice ed the of courts; so now an contempt the and to Count of the indictment was Seven validity upon of the ruling authoritative for refusal to answer “Whether the de when, a time position at comes a witness’s briefly the fendant would summarize for where, the in a forum witness cannot and positions by him sub-committee the held light the position in the of his .reexamine salary from had received a which he his in longer before ruling. is no He position gratuity, prior the which the to committee), and congressional (the quirer defendant held the time at the question opportunity to reconsider no has so he was asked.” The record shows that Bart question. But to the refusal ques replied it evident the that was from Congress, ill is for cure for newspaper involved, tion was for the courts. question he refused answer because the controversy posed infringed upon press as present freedom of the The naked refusal in violation of involves a and was the First Amend counsel us out, But, pointed the Constitution. we have ment to Counsel for to answer. interposed inquired, then “That is the that Bart Subcommittee record shows you upon ground ground on the which refuse to answer objection to these question positions you that situation as to what refer pertinency. We of 815; Id., 367, 374, 438, 1950, U.S.App.D.C. 1951, S.Ct. U.S. 71 94 L.Ed. 256, 87 340 864, denied, 184 F.2d certiorari L.Ed. 95 878, 120, 1950, 71 S.Ct. L. 340 U.S. 95 States, 1913, v. United also Heike 16. See v. 638; Barsky 1948, States, Ed. United 450; 131, 226, 33 L.Ed. S.Ct U.S. 241, U.S.App.D.C. 127, 134, 167 F.2d States, 1917, 244 Mason v. United U.S. denied, 843, 248, 1948, 334 U.S. certiorari 1198; 362, 621, 61 Town L.Ed. 37 S.Ct. 1767; Loew’s, 1511, 92 L.Ed. 68 S.Ct. States, supra; United Morford v. send Cole, 1950, 641, Inc. 9 Cir. v. , denied, 1951, certiorari U.S. reversed other 54 570, 95 grounds, L.Ed. 339 U.S. S.Ct. 71 S.Ct. position?”. Party urer of the 'Communist of Denver your present held prior word, possession of given up but that she had Thereupon, any intervening without said, the records and over had turned of the Subcommittee them Chairman person. any Supreme other to another The Court positions you “Did ever hold rule, Bart newspapers?”. held to the said federal positions with to which it than held, proceeded “where did,” universally to courts have replied, and then “I voluntarily positions criminating detail these facts have been state some revealed, original question, privilege be invoked had held. The cannot which he repeated. newspaper, avoid details.” The 'involving the was disclosure of the that, question already appears (as when the Court further said we have Thus it that, pointed indictment witness was of when the out) which count asked, witness asserted of the other asked to furnish the name was based infringed guaranty, person, required deter- “the court was that it constitutional mine, thereupon was reframed question as it must whenever the short, claimed, question presented In when objection. whether the to eliminate that infirmity question danger of a reasonable further crimina- the constitutional of circumstances, raised, light abandoned of all the Committee tion ques- previous another including as asked and asked disclosures.”19 any the wit- tion. these circumstances The held that after the witness’s ad- Under Court contempt the Commit- ness was not of mission that she had held the office of question as declining tee in to answer Treasurer the name her disclosure of originally presented asked. The Committee indicated successor more than “mere no clearly agreed of the imaginary possibility” that it with his view increasing the ques- question. Abandonment initial danger of crimination. unusual, sense the Com- tion is petitioner Rogers The in the case made intent to in this instance mittee’s abandon that, the further if contention even appears. contrary is clear. No evidence testimony that the witness had been Treas Eight the indictment was Count Party subjected urer had her to ques- to answer a for the refusal Bart possibility prosecution for violation of thus: “Who were the other tion described Act, the further Smith U.S.C.A. § of the Com officials of the Ohio section testimony indicating that she the knew Party period the when the during munist name of her successor in officewould sub organizer was there.” It defendant possible ject prosecution her to for con clearly appears from agreed, and the rec spiracy to that Act. The violate Court response question ord, Bart that in to this referred to v. United States20 Blau as privilege against asserted the constitutional explicitly that contention. The rejecting by guaranteed the Fifth self-incrimination held relating Court activi says that The Government Amendment. Party in criminating ties the Communist are privilege was not available to Bart at this violation of the both as to Smith Act and it, ques he asserted because this time the conspiracy as to to violate that It Act. merely related to the details of was tion that, conspiracy although held a must nec already reply given and a an answer essarily persons, involve at least two one enlarge would the incrimi question not conspiring can be convicted of person already implicit nation, any, prior in if the unknown, persons and that therefore the objection. The Gov without given identity conspiracy of other members of a Rogers upon v. United relies ernment the not essential to conviction of one States.17 conspirator. testified In case before us Bart “I Rogers case the accused the testified: In the head the organizer been and of objection that she had Treas- was Communist

without page 374, Id., Supra, at 19. 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. S.Ct. 438. at 340 U.S. page 442. page Id., 71 S.Ct. at U.S. at page U.S. 71 S.Ct. L. Ed. admittedly organizer and times, years. was the in Illinois Party in different at different * * * Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania danger could not increase the arid Illinois In already by of incrimination incurred him in wheth- then asked many.” was among He. for, prior testimony. the his organizer he er had section been a replied, He Party in Ohio. Communist Appellant also asserts as error repeated, question was likely.” “Most The in refusal of the trial to dismiss the court the exact know did that he - said upon motion dismiss was dictment. The ago.” He years period time—“It is of twenty of the members of ground that quoted in question was then- asked indicting jury ten were Govern grand question asserted Eight Count employees ment and two more were wives against self-incrimination. the' employees. same of This is Government point, grand jury, indeed the same involved decision in opinion and We think point Emspak v. United States. The case, supports the Govern supra, Rogers against there was decided contentions Eig respect to Count position in ment’s appellant. of the ht. equivocal answer, “Most like appellant’s If mentioning directly ly”, Whether, foregoing, in view of the clearly the affirmative, Ohio be deemed respect we should affirm in of Three Counts section in the Ohio persons identity of Six, inclusive, for a or should remand not, the doctrine under Party would problem new trial on dif those counts is a danger al case, increase Rogers presented ferent v. from that If the admission. ready by the incurred -, United all, as answer at likely” be treated “Most today. There the decided also effected the incrimination nevertheless explicitly court ruled that as matter trial membership Party and ac the admission of the sole defense offered law was Pennsylvania was not tivity Illinois and resulting judgment available. Thus the members in by acquaintance with increased upon conviction was not based evidence Act21 was Smith Violation Ohio. pro con; upon offered it was based crime, ad and it potential consisted prosecutor evidence offered alone. the Govern vocacy the overthrow of So, ques- we the legal when reversed violence, conspiracy to by force and ment tion, a claimed factual defense was made membership organization of so, in or do or accused, available to and it was neces- objective. society group having trial, sary that new which that defense Party was Membership in the Communist pres- be considered, would be had. In the proof of but one link in not the crime was case, ent Three through to Counts Six admittedly So, ac if Bart the crime. judgment general guilty. there Pennsyl Party in Illinois tive in jury, Had there been a there would have Party vania, officers fact that knew instructions embodying been statements of possibility in would not increase Ohio applied. to the law be But no there was for violation of statute. incrimination jury and no instructions and statement admission, advocacy which, by The applied. only law In such a case the in Illinois might deemed have occurred be to question for. us is whether there was suffi- and as a Pennsylvania, was not increased support judgment. evidence cient potential be'gan it or incrimination because find that there was. That We ends our con- most, At the informa continued in Ohio. suggested, effect, sideration. It is in that only pos tion as to could add a third Ohio make, assumptions, (1) we three that already sible to the two established venue upon point legal court erred trial in re- prosecution offense for .the Seven, spect to Count that <(2) .therefore Pennsylvania,22 as to Illinois and admission respect it the same error in made of Counts Rogers think that under case the We inclusive, Six, (3) Three and that it did identity of other officials-of the Ohio any not resolve conflicts in in evidence. It, Party the Communist its on reaching section of when Bart those finding counts. is (1948), (1948), Stat. § 21. 62 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C. § Stat. any cededly, view that make of those our we cannot those pertinent. statements are assumptions. viewing In the conviction But so is the statement of the Committee “ * * * find, have in- under Count Seven we as we chairman that we don’t rule on dicated, upon objections.”4 conclusive response the evidence And in ato Com- record; of the there was no contra- face mittee member’s suggestion that the witness dictory support finding evidence of “be possibilities advised of the of con- guilt count; tempt,” on that hence we In reverse. the Committee chairman “No, said: respect through we Counts Three Six he has counsel. Counsel knows that is the support find my substantial evidence to the law.”5 In the record presents view judgment. speculate We cannot the seriously that conflicting statements which raise trial question court in its own made error a mind of fact for the trial court. An of law stated or shown on record. examination of the record demonstrates court, that the sitting jury, without a did judgment The of conviction on not so understand the For matter. while it One, and is and Counts Two Seven reversed 'appellant “comprehended found that that Three, Four, on Counts Five, Six and he refusing was ques- to answer those Eight (three is affirmed. Since the sentence tions,”6 this conclusion upon based imprisonment months’ and a $500) fine of express findings, implied, (1) ap- that supported by any the conviction on of the pellant clearly apprised grounds that his counts, judgment that answering for not rejected were by the Committee and (2) he was afforded Affirmed. another opportunity This, to answer. I think, is appellant’s manifest from convic- BAZELON, Judge (dissenting). Circuit tion on Count 7. charged There he was refusing question to answer a after All of the circumstances pleadings Committee merely counsel repeated the qualifications to the issue relating grounds appellant’s objection, for and then employees grand Government to serve as proceeded immediately propound another jurors in this case are identical with those question. This court reverses that convic- For rea- States.1 tion because “the my opinion case, Committee abandoned sons set I forth question as asked ques- asked another would and remand reverse for a trial new * * * tion. The Committee here. indicated clearly agreed it with [appellant’s] I ground think there is another for or question.”7 Thus, view of the initial trial, upon a new dering my based view in only suggests thing that the Committee Quinn of the words “refuses to answer” in meant an answer to the only I impact 192.2 shall discuss § subsequent 7 was its Count certification upon the instant record. view contempt, initiating the indictment here. Here the court relies certain applied state- If the trial court the same view in colloquy ments in appellant between and considering all of the counts, counsel, hand, contrary indication, the one there is no Committee then clearly it committed similar counsel, error other, members and their as to on the those counts. appellant showing that was made aware grounds his objecting for to answer Appellant asserted lack of pertinency as

were overruled the Committee.3 ground Con- the for not answering 344, p. U.S.App.D.C. J.A., 1. 14. 4. 91 203 F.2d 20. (1867), amended, as 11 Stat. 155 52 Stat.

2. 5. Id. at 12. 2 U.S.C.A. 192. (1938), § 942 p. J.A., 6. 105. Majority Majority opinion, U.S.App.D.C. opinion, 370, U.S.App.D.C. 7. 3. 91 91 203 F.2d 51. 51. 3, 4, 5 and 6. At Counts involved in STATES. v. UNITED EMSPAK con here, appellant’s counsel argument oral No. 10943. pertinent. questions were ceded that those controversy now court, “So,” “the says the Appeal United States Court of s refusals answer.” posed- naked concerns Columbia Circuit. District of refusal, Quinn, a naked dear As made I Argued 5, 1951. Oct. statement, e., at “a without i. refusal re Reargued May 27, therefor” does not time, the reason 1952. inquiring action quire affirmative 19, 1952. Decided Dec. effect, court, treats authority.9 Thus the Rehearing waiver a retroactive for Petition Denied counsel’sconcession April 13, 1953. aware,” as “be made right to appellant’s “by present opinion, court’s in the stated time, despite his at some some method he shall inquirer means that position the I cannot reconcile question.”10 today the decision in result appear that said, “It must the court

where intention aware [a witness] required de were inquirer

his that answers

spite objections.”11 on affirms conviction court This Roge that under the ground 8 on Count priv appellant’s claim the

rs12 doctrine una

ilege self-incrimination against reach consideration I do vailing.13 not. also, F.Supp. 1012. See because, agrees, as this court issue treating a claim' there is no basis differ self-incrimination

privilege against objection

ently to answer:14 any from under Count follows even

It therefore weigh, must still on

8, the fact finder advis hand, statement

one the Committee’s privilege was not daim of the

ing that the and, hand,

available, the other the Com on that it rule would not statements

mittee’s before Thus, this court can objections. validity appellant’s claim of

consider the must determine that the privilege, it first that the’ had been found witness

court below apprised of Committee’sadverse

clearly opportunity another afforded

ruling

answer.15 U.S.App.D.C. majority opinion, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 13. See Id., 47. F.2d U.S.App.D.C. 203 F.2d 33. 9. 91 U.S.App.D.C. Id., 370, F.2d 48 opinion, Majority . seq et States, supra, See v. United U.S.App.D.C. 344, 11. 91 203 F.2d 38. Rogers U.S. 438, 95 L.Ed. 344. 71 S.Ct.

Case Details

Case Name: Bart v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Apr 15, 1953

Citation: 203 F.2d 45

Docket Number: 11045

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.