CAMMER v. UNITED STATES
No. 110
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 24, 1956. Decided March 12, 1956.
350 U.S. 399
Gray Thoron argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Richard J. Blanchard.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
A District of Columbia grand jury returned an indictment against Ben Gold, charging him with having filed a false non-Communist affidavit in violation of
Petitioner appeared and answered the charges. He admitted the facts just stated but denied that his conduct constituted contempt within the meaning of the statute. His answer set out the following additional facts which are not disputed:
Prior to the return of the indictment against Mr. Gold in the District of Columbia, two federal grand juries in New York had investigated this same alleged offense but returned no indictment. Immediately after Mr. Gold was arraigned in the District of Columbia Court, petitioner learned from a roster of the grand jury obtained from the clerk that 13 members of the grand jury—a majority—were government employees. Petitioner decided to make a motion challenging the legal qualificаtions of the government employee jurors. He concluded that this could be done under
Petitioner was also led to believe that it would be necessary to obtain statements from the grand jurors because of the Governmеnt‘s brief and the court‘s holding in Emspak v. United States, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 378, 203 F. 2d 54. There the Government successfully contested Emspak‘s efforts to show that federal employee grand jurors were biased and should not have served by arguing that “there is not the slightest indication in the long motion and offer of proof that an attempt has been made to interview a singlе one of the persons.” The Government also argued there that it was the defendant‘s duty to make his own investigation of bias instead of calling on the court to make it for him. The petitioner was also influenced by what had taken place in connection with an investigation of bias of government employees in another case in the District of Columbia. There a district judge had held that the defendant Weinberg was not entitled to a hearing as to bias of government employees as grand jurors unless the defendant had himself first undertaken to contact the jurors to ascertain from them the existence of bias. The district judge had stated that there was “nothing to prevent counsel, if he sees fit, contacting those 15 members [of the grand jury] and inquiring only of one subject, whether or not they had any personal bias toward” the defendant. After this statement counsel for Weinberg had sent a letter and questionnaire to all the government emplоyee members of the grand jury. Petitioner consulted with Weinberg‘s lawyers who told him they had sent the letters and questionnaires without the prior knowledge or authority of the district judge, that their action was later made known to him, and that no suggestion of criticism was made either by the judge or by the Government. Petitioner then mailed substantially the
On the basis of the foregoing undisputed facts the district judge found petitioner guilty of contempt. He concluded that petitioner‘s act in sending the questionnaires was an impropriety but went on to say: “There seems to be reason to believe respondent may have misconceived the proprieties. What he did was open. There was no opprobrious personal approach to jurors. There is indication respondent may have believed he had a right to propound the questions at the time he did, notwithstanding this Court is of opinion he had not.” 122 F. Supp., at 389.
The contempt section here relied on derives from the Contempt Act of March 2, 1831. 4 Stat. 487. In Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33 (1941), we reviewed the history of the 1831 Act and found that its purpose was greatly to limit the contempt power of federal courts.2 For this reason we gave the provision of the Contempt Act then under consideration a narrow construction. Even though we recognized that Nye was guilty of “highly reprehensible” conduct, we held that he could not be punished summarily for contempt but must be “afforded the normal safeguards surrounding criminal prosecutions.” Id., at 52, 53. Some time after the Nye case we considered In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224 (1945). Therе a trustee in bankruptcy had been adjudged guilty of contempt. The Gov-
Petitioner contends that his conduct was not “misbehavior” within the meaning of the Act, but was a good faith attempt to discharge his duties as counsel for a defendant in a criminal case. We find it unnecessary to decide this but it is not out of placе to say that no statute or rule of court specifically prohibits conduct such as petitioner‘s. Petitioner also contends that sending the questionnaire was not an “official transaction” within the meaning of the Act. However, if we assumed that a lawyer in ordinary practice is an “official” or “officer” of the court it would be hard to draw any line between “official” and “unofficial” transactions. Indeed there is plausibility in the implication of the Court of Appeals that if lawyers are covered by this section of the Act they are engaged in official transactions whenever engaged in the “practice of the profession.” But we find it unnecessary to decide when a lawyer is engaged in an “official
It has been stated many times that lawyers are “officers of the court.” One of the most frequently repeated statements tо this effect appears in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378 (1867). The Court pointed out there, however, that an attorney was not an “officer” within the ordinary meaning of that term. Certainly nothing that was said in Ex parte Garland or in any other case decided by this Court places attorneys in the same category as marshals, bailiffs, court clerks or judges. Unlike these officials a lawyer is engaged in a private profession, important though it be to our system of justice. In general he makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees and runs his own business. The word “officer” as it has always been applied to lawyers conveys quite a different meaning from the word “officer” as applied to people serving as officers within the conventional meaning of that term.3 Cf. Labor Board v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 350 U. S. 264 (1956). We see no reason why the category of “officers” subject to summary jurisdiction of a court under
There are strong reasons why attorneys should not be considered “officers” under
“But what is the process in the case of contempts? Without either an information or an indictment, but merely on a simple rule to show cause, drawn up in any form the judge may think proper, a man is put upon his trial for an infamous offence, involving in its punishment the loss both of liberty and property. He is deprived both of petit jury and grand jury, and is tried by an angry adversary prepared to sacrifice him and his rights on the altar of his own vengeance.
. . . . .
“I may be wrong, but I hold it to be the imperative duty of an attorney to protect the interests of his client out of court as well as in court.”4
Again Mr. Buchanan said:
“I believe that I have as good a right to the exercise of my profession, as the mechanic has to follow his
trade, or the merchant to engage in the pursuits of commerce. . . . The public have almost as deep an interest in the independence of the bar as of the bench.”5
Such statements by the same man who reported the 1831 Act to the House of Representatives almost immediately after Judge Peck‘s acquittal are completely inconsistent with a purpose to treat lawyers as “officers of the court” subject to summary punishment. We cannot hold that lawyеrs are subject to the precise kind of summary contempt power that the Act was designedly drawn to bar judges from exercising. Section 2 of that Act made ample provision for punishing corrupt efforts to influence, intimidate or impede juries.6 And Congress expressly provided that prosecution therefor bе by indictment. Substantially the same provision has been a part of our law ever since.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE REED concurs in the judgment solely on the ground that the circumstances leading to the enaсtment of this statute dictate the Court‘s otherwise unique reading of the term “officers of the court.”
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.