United States v. Field

et UNITED FIELD al. STATES v. 300-302,

Nos. 22116-22118. Dockets Appeals

United States Court of Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 14, 1951. 30, 1951.

Decided Oct. 7,1952. Jan. Dismissed

Writ of Certiorari

See 72 S.Ct. '"

Frank, Judge, part. Circuit dissented See also 190 F.2d F.2d 556. City Mary Kaufman, York of New M. Rabinowitz, City, on (Victor York of New V. brief), Frederick for Alphaeus Field and W. Hunton. Haydon, City, Charles of New York appellant for Dashiell Hammett. Roy Kilsheim- Cohn M. and B. James III, Attys., S. of New er Asst. U. both Atty., City Saypol, (Irving H. U. S. York Martin, Atty., Robert both and Asst. U.S. City, brief), of New York on the States, appellee. United CHASE, CLARK, FRANK, Before and Judges. Circuit CLARK, Judge. Circuit summary appeal, or- This from three contempt, aftermath of the ders affirmance Court Dennis et United al. v. conviction Party of eleven of the Communist officers Act, for violation of America the Smith 18 U.S.C. 2385. Those defendants had enlarged $20,000 bail been in the sum each, by the Bail Fund of the furnished Rights pend- York Congress Civil New appeal and, ing to this after affirm- ance, al., 2 States et United v. Dennis pending certiorari Jackson, Circuit Williamson et al. Justice be- cause the substantial issue of law in- present appellants The volved. are three of the five trustees When Fund. the District Court received the mandate highest final affirmance court on July it ordered surrender of defendants, service of commence imprisonment. their sentences of Seven appeared duly and were incarcerated. not; did and Four when bench warrants produce day, them on did the next bail was declared forfeited. court then appearance directed the it of the before bondsmen and trustees and officers of the surety Fund which had acted Bail fugitives. Appellants appeared examined were Attorney at hearings occupy- States days July ing several —Field 6 July Hunton on and Hammett on July 9. All refused answer certain books record us and to certain before shows that when cited judge inquiry Bail and were into records Fund undertook escape contempt, July fugitives, placed Field on were to before him the July Field was sentenced filed in court others documents on ninety days such when in- imprisonment given. for or until the bonds were These cluded, first, con- “Agreement of his the and of might purge time as himself Deed he Trust,” six tempt. originally September for The others were sentenced dated months, purging September provision with and and like amended signed by trustees, themselves. fifth the five trustee, Dunn, signing Robert a W. second the we have review. These are orders provided time as “Treasurer.” This that should, however, proceedings later Certain accept the Fund was both and loans Judge applied to Chief noted. Field gifts deposit of and certificates —for appeal, eventu pending who Swan for bail receipts given were to be and the lenders application in a detailed ally the denied respectively employed contributors be—to Field, opinion reported States v. in United strikes, in bail the posting “for benefit of Cir., this was con F.2d rights and of civil are threat- those whose denying in Judge L. Hand curred in Second, was ened under attack.” applications by Hammett and Hun- similar oath, November statement under dated al., 2 ton, v. Hunton et 1949, by Dunn, Field, three trustees— three all 190 F.2d 556. Thereafter specific authority to reciting and Hunton — as petitions Reed like before Justice bonds, the post Dunn to Government Bearer for the circuit. Acting Circuit Jus Justice given purchased moneys “by with di- compre petitions in Reed denied the tice persons,” security for verse as collateral opinion July hensive 1951. 193 dated F. specifically bail the named de- eleven opinions these several 86. The of 2d that “in fendants. also stated addition It a sub judges with meticulous care cover authroity in general the contained [sic] case us on part tantial of the now before Agreement Trust, and Deed of the annexed record, and review the entire this full of duly adopted a all the trustees resolution clear greatly been aided the we have July held meeting at a of the trustees on of law there set forth. statements the 22, 1948,reading that follows: Resolved as hereby authorized use the trustees the Field, having refused to com- Meanwhile as the bail fund for bail jury, grand a federal ply with directions of required in the case of Communist contempt in and sentenced was found Act on leaders under Smith indicted imprisonment of six additional term of proceed- July stages at all reviewing in order months—an are finally ings and until the case is termi- companion case herewith of United third, nated.” And there were the formal Field, Cir., A States v. Appeal” penal in “Bonds on sum trustee, Green, was held Abner also fourth $20,000 appearance conditioned on contempt grand of a of directions both particular defendant named whenever proceedings de- jury and of court in required by law or order of appeal herewith, Green in the third cided particular signed by .the defendant Prin- Ap- States, 2 Surety. cipal Dunn as special session of the court plication for hearing July 3; appeared been on Field during having summer recess At the appeals voluntarily waiting subpoe- granted, these three heard at without were September. purpose sitting a mat- Advised that of the single naed. regret delay hearing inquiry make some was the sure- ter of court occurred, disposing knowledge cases has due ties under oath as court, pressure judicial of the whereabouts defendants whom illness inquiry regular seeking opening of was “to as- Oc- work —an term, effecting gravity and the of the issues service of its sist tober which has been process, issued”—he was involved. testify. At and duly proceeded ignored the books sworn and were he readily, contempt. he also stating first he was sentenced for answered Fund, paid he had was a trustee appeared When July 9 he Hammett headquarters of the several visits to the nothing; questions, would admit met previous week Party during Communist including trusteeship Fund, defend- in order himself that the assure signatures (which book the minute appear, during one ants would produced), knowledge Field had at least two of these visits he had seen fugitives, nature of the books appear. His the four who had failed to Fund, plea. After the the same question first refusal to answer was to a plea court’s overruling of the and his con- group of the funds which the the source refusal, tinued he too was sentenced for question. posting had used in the bond in contempt. questions He was then asked a series of Appellants seek reversal here on two pertaining the last had seen the time he juris- basic tenets: had no Fund, fugitives, the Bail functioning the of inquiry, diction conduct the and that the officers, kept. its and the records These it protected by were their answered, exception ques- he of against self-incrimination under Fifth pertaining tions to those who had con- they validly Amendment which had as- Fund, tributed to the as to which he now serted. responded affirmatively a suggestion question put by the court that such dis- of the District Court Jurisdiction tend to incriminate him. closure Appellants’ vigorous attack on the court’s definitely he Thereafter stood on this claim jurisdiction prosecute even to institute and of under the Fifth Amendment. inquiry premise based hearing July was When the resumed on possible the matter concerned a crime questiening court after further ordered the United States. is the exclu- production of the books and records of province of the arm sive executive of the Fund which Field had described. contend, government, they investigate refused, Again alleging privi- the same and, justify, matters if facts submit such lege. specific court then di- through process them to the courts of produced rection that the records be grand jury indictment after review of the questions answered. witness con- precedents upon evidence. The tinued his refusal and the citation for con- rely investigation are cases duties where tempt followed. acting grand jury” or of as a “one-man sworn, Next Hunton was having also improperly granted “delegated were held ad-, appeared subpoena upon without being See, g., to” the e. courts. re Richard- that the vised matter was before the court. son, 247 N.Y. 160 N.E. In re trusteeship He likewise admitted his of Oliver, Beyond this, however, the Bail Fund. he L.Ed. 682. declined, go; he grounds would not argument we think this But misses the privilege against self-incrimination, point authority real as to the court’s questions numerous concerning answer steps take to effectuate its own decrees. records, nature and location the Fund’s True, may have been crimes commit- acquaintanceship fugitives, with four flight ted in connection with the them, when he had seen the time last fugitives, Act, as under Harboring signatures whether on the bond or grand jury U.S.C. §§ agreements trusteeship his, were and even investigation contempt which led to the or not he knew what whether records the companion orders reviewed cases kept. Fund Directions to Bail obviously natural and was desirable in this variously were records answered such possibility area. But accusation and that he plea had no control over them prosecution under a defining statute a crime later, plea and, with -a privilege. any suggest immunity does not offer or Specific directions to answer the violating the direct mandate of a involved, practice Under ancient bench warrants are court; powers are two different bring may be the issued on indictments to defendants events though the acts and trial, viola- suggest that before court after And we or interwoven. same bail, tion from tak either before or after con- conception restricting a court any viction, steps its warrants in order that a to effectuate issue limited ing even such judgment be executed. There can be the reasons investigating decrees power novel, no only but ab doubt of di- noncompliance is not justice. rect bench warrant for arrest effective idea of horrent fugitives justice the four it would in the case logical conclusion Carried to its agree. Dennis et als.” cannot issue exécution We that a court mean carry judg its supplementary writs “Furthermore, it is fundamental effect, criminal, ments, into civil or courts, federal with other in common some out chance action of await must have,inherent courts, power things do agency; also mean that it would side necessary reasonably that are for the ad for the detention warrants cannot issue justice, scope within ministration of Actually fugitives themselves. jurisdiction.” Dwinnell, Strohbar v. always courts have exercised course 915, 5 29 F.2d 916. See also Adams alone, powers; and not specific instances McCann, v. United States ex rel. 317 U. itself, chal principle have been the broad S. 63 87 L.Ed. 143 S.Ct. upon the True, call lenged. 435. properly Here the court A.L.R. was authority carry or out executive assist its continuing disposition the effective of the mandate; its must be its but that mandate case; litigation initiated the Dennis obeyed, whether or not effectuated en who, developed examination those of as be gov forcing another arm of the officers of low, truth, had “in constituted themselves ernment, to the forfeit of human life even jailers fugitives, responsible for quite necessary, is clear. For this rea appearáhce,” ap their was a natural and process executing a federal officer son propriate step. court, merely States even of a United or n Reed, who is author Mr. of the Justice guarding justice, a person federal just point quoted, went clause also on to prosecution is immune from for a state a out that witness was not entitled mere performance homicide committed question jurisdiction: the court’s “It is Neagle, 135 these duties. See In U.S. re enough if court has de facto existence 34 10 S.Ct. L.Ed. and cases organization,” citing Blair v. United cited; Jenkins, Fed.Cas.No.7,259, Ex parte States, 250 39 63 U.S. S.Ct. L. 521; Turner, parte 2 Ex Fed.Cas. Wall.Jr. 979; Shipp, Ed. v. 203 U. States 603; No.14,246, Beckett 3 Woods v. Sher 563, 573, 165, 51 S. 27 S.Ct. L.Ed. Co., C.C.D.Md., 21 F. iff Harford v. United Mine and United States Workers in 65 collected A.L.R. 732. cases America, 258, 293, U.S. 67 S.Ct. Reed, opinion jurisdiction Mr. in his 91 L.Ed. 884. But the Justice above, succinctly appellants’ cited answers us so court seems to clear that we do not juris as to District Court’s argument ground. need to resort to this additional diction thus “District [193 90]: Privilege Against 2. The Self- jurisdic- have the United States Courts of incrimination against offenses the laws of the tion They 18 U.S.C. United States. 3231. § questions of the court While necessary ‘may appro- issue all writs production the order respective priate jurisdic- in aid of their part all a Fund’s books were agreeable usages principles. tions attempt one to obtain as information jurisdic- 1651. U.S.C. ‘The of law.’ money who advanced those had for the is a court not exhausted tion of reasonably expected bail and judgment, of its rendition but continues knowledge whereabouts, judgment Wayman is satisfied.’ until that separation of issue as to the books from Southard, 1, 23, questions expedient. Wheat. L.Ed. is as For deed already they) well as was committed given has Court vote, filing of which organi and trustee guidance such clear in the realm of trust required by Court can was District zation records that think no doubt we acceptance originally. Nor need of the bail exist as to this first issue. In United States White, 694, 699, stop sought those U.S. S.Ct. books; identify for these the to locate and A.L.R. precedents. Once upheld contempt proper were under the the conviction admitted, union, custodianship of a custodian of of the books books of labor was repre ques- no saying official records held “in a custodian had production,” and personal capacity “auxiliary sentative rather than in a tions personal .obligated them, subject was privi merely lege self-incrimination, possible also to their use in court even make though production requiring proof papers might “without other than tend Bagley own.” personally.” them incriminate This is Austin Corp., Cir., rule, settled as shown 31 F.2d certiorari Wilson United States, Austin-Bagley Corp. denied U.S. L. authority Ed. par would seem ticularly here, Pulford v. United conclusive since these trus far, clear, trust, probably tees of a declared 947. So even clearly officers, more than was no breach union are act consti- representatives ing as tutional group, privilege; of a Ham- rather Hunton and mett, purely private in their own per than who refused to answer even these questions, properly contempt. sonal interest. were held in Remaining consideration are two im- necessarily The conclusions thus reached portant questions: series of as to what require affirmance of the convictions. particularly the books would reveal and effect, any, if possible What error dis Fund; to the names of donors Bail the closed in the remainder of the record appel- and as to clue or information should have is not overclear. In Blau bearing lants have the where- States, 335, United 332, 334, 340 U.S. fugitives. appel- abouts of the All three S.Ct. majority L.Ed. the did lants refused to answer the first series of not point; decide the minority but the questions. series, Field answered latter opinion indicates that the entire conviction Hunton and Hammett did not. valid, would still be citing Pinkerton v. States, United 328 U.S. note original So far as Field’s refusal 1489; S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. Hirabayashi disclose names of donors to the Fund States, 81, 84, 320 U.S. 63 S. was based desire to some shield those Ct. though appel L.Ed. persons, manifestly cannot stand. So might apply lants F.R.Cr.P., under rule explicitly ruled as to U.S.C., to the district court to exercise its party names Rogers of members in discretion to reduce the sentences. While States, 367, 371, 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. decision of further issues in this case 438, 95 L.Ed. 344. the privilege For is a may required, not therefore be nevertheless personal one which interposed cannot be definitely since presented by are protect possible others from criminal importance be record of in the ulti prosecution. Murdock, United States v. disposition case, mate of this as well as oth 141, 148, U.S. S.Ct. 76 L.Ed. cases, er like we think consideration of the 210, Henkel, A.L.R. Hale v. problem at this time is desirable. 50 L.Ed. 652. Legally controlling principle is clear. questions asked of these Practically the same result is least indi patterns. fell into certain distinct We cated, great many “a owned fund shall dismiss at once those which con- individuals,” said, of Field each hundreds positions cerned as trustees of the Fund, holding deposit a certificate of or re readily Field and because Hunton office, ceipt, admitted their secret loss- (as long Hammett remain when granted protec- bail” some Amendment. deplete Eighth it and exhaust es imperative. appellants’ thesis, For in detail depositors considered becomes

tion below, Excuse, upon found rest any, comes to the contention if must' therefore surety’s is fixed and constitutional claim of the made, par- deposit limited cash the individual involved effect charge that a can be com crime ticular situation. money, muted into some stated sum of against self-incrimination payment surety which re terminates all great constitutional course one of the monetary sponsibility. Such a evaluation pushed rights, aside. Hoff lightly not to be definitely of crime is at variance States, man v. United 341 U.S. principle settled only that bail is to Blau v. United S.Ct. L.Ed. presence amount as “will insure 159, 71 340 U.S. S.Ct. defendant,”2 and, logical pursued Smith United ly, seriously prejudice furnishing will Con trial, pending of bail particularly in the must be sideration of its exercise here against government’s case crimes approached, however, perspective be existence, determined where amount so freed fore court at the time many stages high. Indeed, ap is sure earlier troublesome at litigation. thoughtful peals developing concerning high this same As the now bail opinions the various courts have demon consequence perhaps vigorous are strated, prosecutions in original pressing of such contentions problems of presented Dennis case serious already have traditional weakened the adjusting traditional views of freedom responsible value of a bail bond with sure expression guarding the need for ty. dangerous' itself. government attack the basic So before us question These are now settled case waiver, argued has been much in terms court; highest of our here final decision with consideration directed to what each only pursuit to deal appellant may have done or done responsi fugitive and how far those felons think, waiving privilege. his toward We appearance may for ble their however, confining approach that this is a pertinent claiming refuse information problem to the before us. Rather should applicable privilege.1 ******The must rule the situation be viewed from the broader any as with other federal same be the aspect and of the nature extent bail; their convicts and what hold obligations originally ap necessarily generality have assumed these must application. pellants. present pur For all intents and regarded poses they are to be as the sure too, Directly involved, is another ties, only Dunn, though the treasurer of right, constitutional “excessive P., continuing; 46(c), 2. E. R. Cr. rule that a Mr. Justice Reed ruled witness “having regard to the nature and circum party, court, not a before a take weight charged, of the offense stances exception ques materiality to the of the against him, of the evidence the financial tions, citing States, Nelson v. United 201 ability give defendant bail and U.S. 26 S.Ct. 50 L.Ed. 673. the character of defendant.” See agree, we While we think Rubinstein, ex also United States rel. inquiry v. prima material to the facie Mulcahy, Cir., 1002; making. persons 2 155 F.2d United court was Some had large ap rel. Potash total in States ex v. District Director made a pearance investment Immigration Naturalization, Cir., fugitives 2 of these before the 747, 751; required; proper States ex rel. 169 F.2d United it would be court when Pirinsky Shaughnessy, Cir., 2 v. 177 F.2d how to ascertain concentrated was larger 708; Zydok Butterfield, Cir., v. 6 not 187 F. investment and whether or States, any knowledge 802, 804; 2d Williamson v. United least investors had People 280; flight principals of the Stat of their or had 2 of the e Snow, steps ex rel. 340 Ill. of Ill. Sammons v. taken endeávor 8, 72 with an N.E. A.L.R. them. page 801. notation at may be cited Among which other cases actually bonds. The group, signed the their v. to to the trust same effect are required nature of the court 196, 28 Ryder, L.Ed. 729, 4 S.Ct. men- 110 U. S. through documents be disclosed States, Wall. 308; above, accepted they thereby all Reese v. United tioned Taintor, 16 541; Taylor Bail Fund 19 L.Ed. v. of the for the use Cosgrove 287; at all Wall. for such bail as Winney, stages prosecution and un- pending of the Simmons, C. 897; States L.Ed. United til its final termination. S.D.N.Y., F. L.R.A. C. Commentaries, sets Blackstone In his D.C.N.J., Caligiuri, 35 F. United States v. bail as “nature” of traditional forth the of com Supp. this line It was bailment, person to delivery, “a of a precedents which Mr. pelling upon upon sureties, giving (together his their Justice “in holding these trustees Reed relied in ap himself) security sufficient * ** jailers fugitives, re truth of the supposed pearance; being to continue he sponsible appearance.” their friendly custody going instead gaol.” 4 So the Su Bl.Comm. 297. urge an con Appellants that this is older expressed thought preme a like view, implicit cept yield which must person refusing hold a immune from deposit allowing statutes modern had which arrest on an indictment for bond, in lieu of a bail cash or securities Story already Mr. forfeited bail. pecuniary surety’s duty is Justice bail, in recognizance “A a crimi said: wholly impersonal one. is course case, taken secure the due atten nal many statutes states true have party answer the accused to dance jurisdictions many courts in state trial, indictment, and to submit to relied them to settle favor judgment of It is thereon. surety point validity as to the mooted designed as a satisfaction the of indemnity prisoner given bond paid; it is fense when forfeited Surety surety. Kelley, Western Co. v. compelling party a means of to sub Note, N.W. see S.D. punishment which the mit the trial and 496, 502. Contra Va.L.Rev. Sansome v. parte for his offense.” Ex law ordains Samuelson, Minn. N.W.2d Milburn, 704, 710, 9 280. This 9 Pet. 170 A.L.R. with annotation 1161— repeated many conception is cases same Simmons, United States v. C.C.S. find involved a “moral risk as well N.Y., Leary D. 47 F. 14 L.R.A. 78. Casualty the material & risk.” Concord Surety F. Co. United 600, Ann.Cas.l913D 78, 81, Judge 91 A.L.R. where 2d upheld such an pointed out: “If the con Swan court lacks express agreement, relying upon New York surety’s purpose ability fidence in the citing law and New York decisions “as appearance of a bailed defend secure good Appellants founded in sense.” stress ant, approval may it its of refuse a bond quote this and decision from it certain standing though the financial of even impersonal references to the character of question.” point beyond this is To bail surety’s obligation. expres But these Lee, States v. D.C.S.D. he cited United context, out sions are taken of 613, 614, Ohio, F. where favoring opinion surety was a to a particularly strong statement as follows: a principal, against and not as theory law, of the aby recogni “In the government. Greater freedom to the sure action, in of bail a criminal zance the ty regard may strengthen well be a to the custody accused is committed of the ing relationship; any factor in the bail at jailers choosing, as to of his sureties own we are clear that this favor cannot be rate placed power is far so their long and settled held overturn line any upon at time arrest him to which we have of cases referred. recognizance and surrender him to the Moreover, court, bound, Rules, peril, think, at and are their to see point F.R.Cr.P., Thus obeys clear. the court’s order.” make rule shown, ques- answer refusing “had person provides “A 46(d) and their relating to the fund a bond tions bail execute permitted give bail shall defendants, disregard a connection with or more sureties appearance. for his One responsibilities of or notes their as sureties required, bonds cash or discovery presentation accepted and before may be of the principals.” of security re- their need be proper cases no Note states quired.” Committee obligation as- is nature Such existing of “This is a restatement rule they pro- these when sumed part on 6 U.S.C. practice, and is based in Dis- for the in the originally vided bonds provides for A. 15”—the statute which § trict Court. is that exercise obvious of the United deposit Shapiro 1, in 335 en v. United U.S. method of in some exoneration fairness 59-65, 1787, 17-19, 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. If utmost must be devised. extent of important which is itself because of its ¡his money, obligation is to lose he will holding required the records to be that hardly up put it as exoneration before loss kept by regulations OPA under wartime rule, however, is shown. Under the price subject controls were get surety can exoneration from his con- privilege. See also Dar United States v. responsibility jailer; tinuing and the 100, 125, by, U.S. 312 61 S.Ct. 85 may per- then court order different 1430; 132 A.L.R. Davis v. haps better in bail. Thus 328 66 Flynn, v. 90 L.Ed. 1453. spoke approvingly revocation Wigmore given by bail Dean states privilege, these trustees in that this other others, subject relinquish- should they cases before the be District Court like because 110; Schwab, Ky. 82, Scholl express implied, in ad S.W. by contract, ment Bell, Ky. sup v. 248. Natur- S.W. retrospectively, and cites vance obligation ac- Sim., ally deduced Weaver, 1 port cases as Green v. such activity direct, cepted be close and must Corp., Ch., 404; Hickman London Assur. general citi- merely not the of either burden 742; 45, 18 524, 195 A.L.R. Swed P. 184 Cal. zenship accepted performance or due Fidelity Casual & ish-American Co. v. Tel. apposite holding that office. More is the Wig- Co., ty 208 Ill. N.E. See may of immunity direct waiver constitution- 1940. He more Ed. on Evidence 3d § ally officials, public including be may says agreement also police officers, applied even as to acts public required of, against, of enforced passage before the Canteline statute. 2275a; Seabury, ficers, Ad and see also McClellan, 25 N.E.2d 972. N.Y. 1932,18 A. American Institute dress at Law question appears thus one hand, certain 372. On other B.A.J. upon obligation directness of the undertaken opinions po state court have assumed entry into the office. officers on their constitution lice stand present In obliga case the refusing answer al tion assumed these to act as duty. concerning violation of their official jailers principals for their was much more Commission, Cal.App. Christal Police direct immediate than undertaken Lemon, re 2d 92 P.2d 15 Cal. by wholesalers and retailers continued who App.2d 82, Hurley, Drury 59 P.2d respective in their businesses after OPA Ill. 83 N.E.2d These cases upheld regulations Shapiro they precedents, short since of clear deal fall States, 335 U.S. collaterally by holding issue went into force. There had little duty violate their making such officers comp voluntary choice; here choice was may properly discharged claim and be too, Here, nullification of the obli lete.3 cause of such violation. Yet there seems no gation by resort yet more quarrel suggestion, reason to since complete than that adverted into the Sha principle obviously the pressed cannot be to piro opinion. Moreover, there is a certain acceptance hold that all of office carries an anomaly, realistically viewed, in ruling perform without resort to the which, upholding while major’ conten protection. constitutional public Else a offi production tion as to hooks, sticks or judge bribes, cer must all disclose a hank in the bark as the implementing questions official embezzlements, indeed, a citizen concerning their contents.4 We conclude all violations of his obligation good citi questions directly pertinent zenship. Louisville, Ry. & St. H. L. Co. v. fugitives whereabouts of the or to clues stressed, 3. The element of choice is ing availability and the of other less example, People in eases such as types v. Ros controversial constitutional enheimer, supra, 209 N.Y. guaranty protection 102 N.E. lib individual against L.R.A.,N.S., 977, inter area, e.g., speech erties in this freedom of esting opposing below, dissent and views pro of the First Amendment and the 1093, Id., Misc. N.Y.S. illegal hibition search seizure App.Div. 875, 544, relying 130 N.Y.S. See, e.g., of the Fourth Amendment. opera Meltzer, Required involved Records, the McOarran highway tion of a motor vehicle on Act, Privilege Against and the Self-In supporting making and thus a statute crimination, it a 18 U. of Chi.L.Rev. felony operator for a motor vehicle Morgan, Privilege Against to The Self-In leave scene of an crimination, accident without Quasi Minn.D.Rev. stopping giving name, residence, Self-Incrimination, Public Records number, or, police and license Davis, no if of The Adminis Cob.L.Rev. about, reporting Investigation, ficer is the accident trative Power 56 Yale L. police Privilege 1111, 1137, 1138, 1154; to the nearest station. J. Against Self-Incrimination, 49 Yale L.J. thoughtful 4. Several recent 1059, 1087-1069, articles 1078. See also the broad desirability provisions have stressed the of disdos- L. of the A. I. Model Code type Evidence, sures of the we have been discuss- Rules issued. be de- had been cannot whom bench their whereabouts down warrants trace questions applied the The which else to privilege; feated claim of page were, meaningless (and page 341 U.S. at S.Ct. obligation assumed is is 816: penalty doubly possibility so all

yond limited within these us Hence, only ous to existent of further providing direct that the remotely these appellants, were repeated refusals judge in to some damages). And bonding or limits. questions here asked went limits; answers and at best merely future asking them was assistance Certainly the vague threat potentially unclearly danger- does repudiation to them, prohibition objective inquiry. seem of non- capable clearly while be- to Weisberg refuse to answer. I berg? refuse “Q. “Q. “Q. Do “Q. ^{[*] [******]} IA. When did Have Do to answer. is now? ^[*] you know you do. you know where Mr. William ^[*] you seen A. I refuse to answer.” last see Mr. him this week? ^[*] William ^[*] him ? Weis- ^[*] A. A. I thus assumed were responsibility definite questions following, identical almost penal- customary properly visited present asked in the the defendant Hunton acting defiance of court ties exacted case, today by my colleagues to are held appropriate its normal exercise of in the privilege: without the functions. “Q. you Henry Do A. know Winston? question ground I answer the on affirmed.

Convictions may tend to incriminate me. that the answer you “Q. know where Robert G. Do (concurring as Judge FR^NK, Circuit Green, Gus Hall or Hen- Thompson, Gilbert ruling). dissenting one as to affirmance do ry presently located ? A. I Winston are must affirm entirely agree that we 1. I not. grounds thé convictions last, “Q. you did see Robert G. When the defend- jurisdiction, and that had Thompson I answer ? decline to A. privilege either constitutional ants had no to in- ground might the answer tend Bail Fund’s producing with reference me. criminate concerning testimony as to records or oral production” of “auxiliary to the matters you “Q. did last see Gilbert When those record's. I to answer on Green? A. decline point decided disagree might I on one to in- ground that the answer tend 2. But my colleagues’ paragraphs of the last few criminate me. to tes- were asked opinion: The defendants you “Q. Thompson Have Robert seen G. questions some other tify orally in answer Thursday of I since last week? de- A. colleagues (1) my which—so concede— ground an- cline to answer on self-incrimination, (2) were tend would might tend to incriminate me. swer “auxiliary” production of not at “Q. you Have seen the defendant Gil- ordinarily records, (3) would July 5? A. I bert Green since decline con- anti-self-incrimination by the covered ground might on the that the answer answer privilege. Peculiarly within that stitutional tend incriminate me.” the de- about when category were ques- My colleagues’ position as to acquain- those saw, or about last fendants bargained tions is this: The defendants refugees. with, the Dennis-case tance .This away many any before reply months question the kind of precisely arose, they voluntarily when judicial inquiry Court, earlier which the thereby impliedly self-in- became sureties privileged tending to year, held promised government to disclose crimination, like this. in a case much See in bringing aid in- information Hoffman v. persons custody for whom the convicted 1118. There the witness gone refused, asked, bail. have no had give when testi- Hoffman defendants assume defendants did that fugitives doubt that mony his connections with as to obligation. too, as- privilege thereby the effective asserts the Doubtless, breaks ob- flatly in- ligation, privilege voluntarily assumed, sertion of the would be testify to obligation orally. and be consistent with that would accept my it. I do not col- a breach of But I begin case with latest federal on criminally may leagues’ thesis that a which my colleagues rely, Shapiro v. United punish a man such a contract who breaks States, 92 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. advance, agrees, which he in sur- long to plainly 1787. I think that demonstrates privilege. render his anti-self-incrimination assumption voluntary that an advance of an short, In I (pre- think that no such advance obligation orally destroy testify to does inquiry) validly destroy contract can Shapiro privilege. In the case Court

privilege self-incriminating (not to give oral construing statute, was an OPA 50 U.S.C.A. testimony) when re- asserted witness in Appendix, 922, which en- those § sponse questions to during proceeding, if gaged regulated in a business that Act apply. that would otherwise keep open (a) both to make and to records sureties, inspection relating subject No case bail or other subpoena (b) by my persons, colleagues “appear testify” has been cited orally under oath at any of support position. Nothing inquiries. of their administrative The Court held previous defendant, Bail voluntarily decisions relative to this by engaging that the My subject.1 colleagues’ business, Fund bears on the in such obligation assumed the innovation; ruling startling compliance is a it marks requirements. with these deepest “public this inroad on also the statute held that rec- ruling particular case, required records; In this ords” date. there- relatively may little conse- seem to have fore the defendant had no constitutional my prevailed, quence; for, respect view it privilege production; even if with to their that, the defendants would only accordingly, compulsorily pro- would mean on judge them, trial urge ducing be entitled to use he was not to immu- entitled When, nity prosecution discretion to their sentences.2 on reduce the basis however, therein, despite statutory the defendants have served their facts disclosed sentences, they may immunity be again provision asked the same 202(g) of OPA contempt, questions again immunity conferred, held in statute. The thus said repeat Court, only their refusals answer. More- was “co-terminous with point over, majority ruling on this would what otherwise have been consti- precedential consequences. privilege.” But, wide All significantly, have tutional spell explains why carefully my I shall out rea- this Court differentiated the lack of disagreeing on issue. effect sons on the that, try show, my I

1 think shall testify assumed defendant. The erroneously applied said, colleagues (1) cas- 1 at page 335 U.S. S.Ct. admittedly nothing having to do with oral “Of oral page es at course all testi- * * * testimony, (2) holding mony properly compelled cases that civil can exchange (i.eremedies only immunity other than criminal remedies for waiver of used, where punishment) privilege.” one who Swan, Judge Field, already States has United Field’s sentence run. Be- 1. Pierre Cir., 190 F.2d based bis denial of cause St. solely refusal turn over S.Ct. bail U.S. Judge may pass books and records. L. Hand whether doubt con- Judge Swan, appeal viction, since the seems to be followed although al., Cir., moot, et 190 F.2d Jus I find it Hunton 556. somewhat difficult same; S., tice Reed did the Field v. U. to reconcile St. Pierre Southern Co. U. S. v. Pac. Terminal Interstate Com- Flynn, Commission, we did not merce S.Ct. jailing have before us issue of 55 L.Ed. 310. contempt. Bail Fund Trustees original. Emphasis as in is, Shapiro Frankfurter, dissenting J., 2. That reduce the sentences imposed page 42, them extent at refusal being page 1396, to answer here dis- the dis- confirmed cussed.

KM Shapiro df think, though, production 1375.

To summarize: The defendant We keep tes distinguished to and records must from oral obligations (1) on two took — orally. timony produce testify as (2) records to to the records what would con * * * tain, privilege, produced. first was not had at odds been “public because the been made very records had matter that incriminate would [T]he But lips records.” Court said that had to be forced from the de of privilege, himself, the second was fendant within which rather than from obtained testify orally means that the not to the records or books.” v. Shapiro’s previous destroyed Sportswear, 856, not be could Daisart 2 F.2d 169 assumption 862, voluntary grounds, so to reversed on other v. Smith testify. result, Shapiro As a could have United States, 137, 1000, 69 337 S.Ct. orally compelled testify as been to mat- 93 1264. tending only ters to self-incrimination be- My colleagues in now wiping out statutory grant cause of correlative rely distinction (1) state court cases But, immunity. appeal case on be- in the which, Shapiro case, like sustained, as here, grant us as was im- fore no valid, in the face of the privilege, statutes munity defendants, to the their requiring druggists keep or others rec remained, notwithstanding, implied open public inspection ords official to make promise disclosure. court,4 produce them in or (2) cases re distinction, Shapiro down in the laid quiring reports certain kinds of oral to be production required case, rec- between police.5 made But in these cases compulsion oral has testimony ords point state courts have carefully themselves court: “We rec- reaffirmed our own been out, sustaining ed as a basis of those stat required that if Daisart had been ognize utes, attempt the statutes no reports pursuant OPA’s record- submit compel reporter, against an assertion of requirements, then Smith could not keeping privilege, testify immunity as to compelled to claim reports.6 States, contents of Shapiro 68 think that not v. United S.Ct. them. * ** supports ple Rosenheimer, supra 5, “The v. note tinction: Court 209 N. immunity page pro- 122, page at 102 ‘short answer’ that the Y. at N.E. 532. compliance People Creeden, also does cover See v. vided 281 N.Y. requirements per- 107; Amato, 24 those as to which N.E.2d Bowles v. D.C.Colo., E.Supp. 361, would been excused 60 son com- 363. privi- pliance noting constitutional many because It worth * * * lege. Plainly, reporting statutes, con- like state above, the ones 202(g) according immunity upheld ground strues have been only testimony -scanty to oral under oath.” non-incriminating na- i.e., required, ture of the information e.g., Davis, See, State Mo. 18 4. 108 identity number, driver’s and license con- People 894; Henwood, 123 S.W. Mich. stituted no threat to the informer. real N.W. 82 70. supra parte Kneedler, Ex See note page 639,147 Mo. S.W. 243 at Com- Kneedler, g., parte See, Ex 5. e. Mo. Joyce, monwealth v. Mass. L.R.A.,N.S., S.W. supra Davis, N.E.2d State People Rosenheimer, 209 N.Y. page note Mo. at S.W. 894. L.R.A.,N.S., N.E. See Mason v. United simple .police regula is a statute 6. “The * * * answers attempt does extend to does not tion. Swingle unsubstantial; too remote and authorize the admission terms in a evidence criminal information proceeding.” compulsory Kneedler, supra parte identification alone does not Ex privilege. requiring page 639, violate the A 243 Mo. at statute note S.W. * * * report” police page a “full hesitate officer of de- “I upholding a tails of motor has un- statute accidents been held appear City operator of a vehicle to constitutional. Rembrandt v. Cleveland, App. 4, as a witness on the trial examined Ohio N.E. 364. prosecution against practical important There is an himself differ- a criminal reporting statutes, the occurrence.” Peo- ence these his conduct in between

105 if embodied important as which is at least as justi cases in those slightest intimation dis- promise express in an contractual them interpretation of my colleagues’ fies —to dealings with beneficiary all to close to his required statute holding as that one Yet property. beneficiary’s money or other privilege, a reports loses his make such fiduciary, it beneficiary has sued when a the contents of inquiry to which judicial country that uniformly in this held has been relevant, give self-in refuse report are to self-in- give may refuse fiduciary testimony. a result Such criminating oral deal- testimony such about criminating oral believe, in this coun is, precedent without seriously to may be ings, although the fact, result took try. Supreme Court, in he un- obligation impede or frustrate con into reporting statutes these state court See, voluntarily. undertook questionably 335 Shapiro United sideration in Cal.App. 37, Berman, 105 parte Ex e.g., ada it was 1, 18, 68 Yet S.Ct. 1375.7 U.S. Maretti, N.J.Eq. 125; 93 ap Vineland v. P. privilege still insisting mant Holbrook, 483; Mich. 117 A. Warren testimony. plied to all oral inapplicability N.W. 712. “anomaly” My an colleagues consider it case English these United States production of documents to differentiate the Ch., 404, Weaver, Sim., cited Green “questions contents.” concerning their parte in Ex explained my colleagues, is the defend- questions asked of Even had the Berman, supra. restricted, I would not here been thus ants anomalous; more regard the distinction as Very point the cases relative much in are Supreme Court does not. point, officers, public policemen and other anomaly But whatever there obligations owed involve contractual questions concern- applying privilege government. policeman, A he takes a when re- ing the books’ contents vanishes with office, the most solemn manner contracts in questions which were spect to the asked here by his oath of signalized conceivable —as contents, i.e., ques- to these utterly unrelated apprehen aid in the detection and office—to last tions about when the defendants had promise ob sion of criminals. His solemn fugitivess the like. seen viously promise give informa includes a government about the deeds of cite, tion to My colleagues and I been do have courts, suspected criminals. Yet the when single discover, unable to American case said, arisen, with no validly ever the issue has deciding that statute can abolish exception, officer, if called in respect such an privilege giving oral tes- squarely inquiry Moreover, case, an concerned with facts timony. no in the instant scope offi within the of the officer’s sworn report or statute the defendants efficaciously duty, may priv cial assert obligation dis- make disclosures. Their contractual, ilege. Christal v. Police Commission deriving im- See wholly close is Cal.App.2d 564, Francisco, 33 P.2d plication sureties. No San from their contract as 416; Lemon, Cal.App.2d re cited, 59 P. I can find American case has been 213; Drury Hurley, that, 2d 402 Ill. none, effect con- to the advance Bell, Ky. N.E.2d Scholl v. promise, can abro- tractual States, 8 cf. Claiborne v. United pertinent S.W. gated. decisions hold the All courts, 690. The such way. fiduciary. the case other Consider cases, fully acknowledging the ob official’s patently obligation, He assumed owes testify orally, hold ligation to that the rem- fiduciary when he becomes a —an Sullivan, carrying penalties States v. See United criminal even those keep reports, failure to for abrogation perhaps it not be a viola effect oral record-keeping report-mak tion of jail testimony. A man can be sent to ing statute to exclude from the record keep only for failure to certain once report tending any statements to self- imprisoned But he records. can be incrimination. many many different times in as different proceedings dissenting Frankfurter, J., as he is asked also 7. See reports, pages pages 59-65, has no about those U.S. at S.Ct. at as to their contents. 1404-1407. Flynn,

edy punish Ohio, States v. the breach is not criminal 170 F. ment, damages money are not And if removal from office. “We F.2d 672. civilly proved, liable. privilege they unmindful of the can 'be can be held constitutional * * * that, privilege- by per But I think than the which all no more may be exercised sons, they jailed or including police officers, any pro asserting policeman, can ceeding, civil or criminal As fined for the breach. [citations]. situation, pertinent ques view the when My think, betray the weak- colleagues, I propounded tions were to before by “appo- position citing, ness of their grand ques jury, the answers to which site,” McClellan, 282 N.Y. Canteline v. them, they tions would tend to incriminate anyone held in N.E.2d 972. Was put they voluntarily were ato choice which contempt questions? for answer refusal required Duty made. them to answer. ap- quoted Not at all. The court there Privilege permitted them an refuse proval passage case Christal They privilege, swer. chose to exercise the quoted above. alone should That privilege but exercise was whol inapposite serve to Canteline. show how is ly police duty inconsistent with their of proof But we have its irrelevance: better They they claim that had a con ficers. There case an was before the court in that right stitutional to answer un refuse amendment to the New York constitution * * * circumstances, they der the but which, proceedings so far as New York right police had no constitutional to remain concerned, wiped were could have out the in the face of their clear violation of officers or, indeed, public officials, for privilege for duty imposed upon them.” Christal v. everyone. But that amendment did not Francisco, supra Police Commission of San modify provide privilege; it did not Cal.App.2d 92 P.2d 419]. [33 jailed an official could be if he refused questions; pro-

Suppose policeman self-incriminating had been as- answer who it signed merely exercising arresting fugitive Dennis-case vided that an official just Thompson asked, had been as one should lose his office.9 In Can- teline, applied here asked: “When did amendment. was defendants Suppose the see you Thompson?” last offi- position my colleagues’ The weakness of cer, privilege, had re- on the basis appears Hick from their citation of further precedents The teach answer. fused Corp., 184 Cal. London Assur. man v. adjudged in that he not have could been 18 A.L.R. and Swedish- 195 P. contempt. Fidelity Casualty American Tel. Co. v. & the Hick Co., 208 768. In privilege, Ill. 70 N.E. short, assertion of In on the by case, plaintiff, insured the de punishment man criminal will not use courts policy fendant, to submit to an specific perform- agreed compelling means of as a in matters concern under oath obligation, examination policeman’s contractual ance of a brought Plaintiff suit on po- ing the loss. approve will other remedies setting up privilege, he policy, although, obligation. So breach of liceman’s to disclose the re previously refused defendants, have had because here: The quired information defendant. disclosure-obliga- contractual their broken it, that, as he had breached could future found tion, may rejected as sureties in policy. The court did Casualty recover on Surety & Co. v. not Concord cases. attempt, however, not, by punishing the States, Cir., A.L. specifically per- him into Lee, coerce plaintiff, to 885; United States v. D.C.S.D. R. amendment, Emphasis constitutional even abrogate added. 8. any class of tbe provision York con- of the New This new citizens. adopted years always six was York has stitution Yet New Seabury’s speech public Judge (cited public to turn over records officials after custody. People Coombs, express my colleagues) advocating relin- public quishment York N.E. The New of- N.Y. “anomaly” apparently taking see no courts a condition of office. ficials as states, distinction. the reluctance of illustrates ‘volun- practical sense, surety’s is less promise. forming his contractual police entering the tary”; every sin- case seems man Swedish-American Co. Tel. is more, he gularly inapposite, thoroughly not in force since did understands — detect way length agreeing self-in- told at is privilege against involve the he—that implied crimes, case, crimination. the defendant whereas disclose bail-surety private company, plaintiff, disclosure-obligation had of a insured plaintiff agreed that, generally understood. in order to enable the well earned, de- premiums to check on the then, my colleagues’ decision Since inspection open fendant’s books should be special reasonably on the notion of rest n suit, plaintiff. premi- In a about the class, overruling it must be taken as ums, brought by plaintiff, the court or- i.e., any precedents, advance holding as that plaintiff’s in- dered defendant promise with the contractual inconsistent spection pertinent defend- books of the extinguishes the privilege exercise of the company ant. The was fined for civil con- colleagues’ If privilege. my remarks about tempt that the when it refused. It asserted the need for a “close and direct” relation discovery order was unreasonable search promise privilege any lin- between leave Supreme Illinois seizure. The Court of score, gering on this those can doubts doubts Nothing that it was in case held not. that easily dispelled way: be in this insert in a testimony. relates to oral express provision contract an one of parties promises other, divulge, precedents say All the the self-in- designated information of a kind, and that privilege crimination relative oral testi- promissor privilege surrenders his with constitutionally mony cannot be abolished testimony reference to oral in it so far as by private per- advance contracts between performance would interfere with government sons or even a and its between promise. Then, presto chango, up the chim- My crime-detecting colleagues officials. are ney goes Thus, privilege. my if col- precedents either ignoring those or an- leagues’ generally accepted, decision is which, nouncing a new doctrine for these practical sole effect of the constitutional purposes, puts govern- contracts between privilege will be to add a words a few special ments in and bail-sureties a class. hopes So the high contract. of Madison why special Why But a such class ? should fellows, expressed and his in this Fifth policeman, suspected conspiracy a privilege, up Amendment will end in a rub- criminals whom he duty owes a to detect ber-stamp Especially contractual clause. arrest, have the benefit government employees will all stripped be despite duty, private his a contractual while privilege by long, contract. Before — bail-surety not, although does such harm rubber-stamped existence, privil- out of silent, surety, keep a if allowed to does to ege quaint antiquarian will be but a item of society public grave morals is far less lore. by policeman? than that done such a silent policeman uniform, any rate, my The fact that a wears a colleagues today At are rul public servant, that, advertising ing his status as a a contract government, certainly any validly discharge does not mean that man can surrender that consti obligation part perform- long of his “due tutional before there arises a —a accepted inquiry judicial office”—is not at least in ance of as which he is asked give ' private self-incriminating and direct” as that of a citi- oral testimony “close under surety. acting surety’s regard a ruling zen Nor is the oath. as at odds with assumption of his one iota the rationale more Court decisions in “voluntary” policeman. respect than is that of a of other constitutional privileges.10 truth, might plausibly argue that, Thus, example, one no one thinks an official Zerbst, 10. Johnson 304 U.S. 58 S. Adams Gillies, McCann, Von Moltke v. 332 U.S. ex rel. Ct. States 68 S.Ct. L.Ed. 268. Glasser, States ise not to portant rights abandoned tered when one is calling advance abandonment of long answer is that the courts hold abandonment criminal gested right being thoughtlessly foregone. waive that criminate. for like fully aware of prívate person capable public policy right away that, them oral advance of reasons, plead proceedings; after trial before the Nevertheless, right relinquished since the testimony disposition by judicially questioned, into is forbidden to what or the statute such by jury considerations, privileges can after operation, he is same happening. validly happening indictment questioning. doing.11 it rule can, however, contract contract limitations as that, but tends to in prevent governs asserting many “A of events privilege al, Advance personal because be bar it must prom future away And, then sug im be ance.18 tent, the arises.17 tion abandoned which one alienable—not he can worker workmen’s or remove a A censee “equity tractor cannot agree gain So with the action to provision of any patent right “contract out” his that was induced defenses in advance not to, under a cannot, * * * self-incrimination thus to party agrees lawfully compensation suit to a federal be redemption.”14 disposition, if sued for infringement.16 affected in advance patent the same fraud and validate a sue or remove advance contract is invalid when the yielded up not to plead fraud or statute.15 rights way, it.” duress, court, bargain a mortgagor’s previous not Similarly, a bring cause of duress.”13 invalidity —in under although lawfully “A may suit accru is A away con bar adv ex ac yet in be li defense, promise a It my or to ‘waive’ benefit to me that colleagues seems have it, contrary generally forgotten has been held to stirring undervalued the public if it is made at the to the interest years words uttered Court * “* * the enforcement of time the contract ago: [A]ny compulsory dis * * * involved”; a'promise is such “is covery by party’s oath, extorting the the accrual of the cause valid if made after crime, to convict him of to forfeit his 312, S., 313, 281 v. U. ry, 11. Patton limitations, or the statute or fail 253, 74 854. ure of consideration to an action on a scarcely promissory note. But it would (1950). Corbin, §§ 12. Contracts 1515 stipulation a' be contended that inserted discharge bankruptcy, Fed- Cf. note, in such a that he would never set Koppel, Bank Mass. Nat. v. eral 253 up defense, would debar him 379, 40 1443. N.E. A-L.R. thought if the defense fit make it.” (1950). Corbin, § 1515 Contracts 13. Spring-Filled Corp. See also Nachman v. Co., Kay Mfg. F.2d 781. 14. Ibid. Morse, See, Copper 17. Insurance v. e.g., Home Co. Wall. In Red 15. Rover Co. op. Corbin, Commission, L.Ed. 365. See cit. Ariz. dustrial supra 1445; Restatement; § note A.L.R. P.2d Wass (1932). Co., Contracts 185 Minn. Construction Bracker 240 N.W. 464. Sales, Cal.App. 54, 59, See In 18. re Mfg. Pope Gormully, P.2d court refused to 16. Co. where the petitioners contempt asserting 414. find S.Ct. quoted approval agree- with of an there violation attorney French, ment with Miss. made the district as follows Crane * * * repeat appears testimony given “But to be at trial before the 503: “ * * * grand jury: declining between there can be no distinction a clear advantage relationships contractual which the the wit- take * * * agreement attempt- party, binding to a himself nesses . allows law by him [the witness] will not ed to be that he avail himself contract testify right or not to whether he would would which the .law has allowed to of a grounds public rights policy. wholly A void no man whatever him may up would be decline to set of usu- created defense thereunder.” v. FIELD. UNITED STATES of a principles contrary property, is * * * abhor Docket No. government. free [I]t American. of an the instincts rent to Appeals Court of power, but despotic purposes suit Circuit. Second polit atmosphere of pure it cannot abide Sept. 14, Argued Boyd v. personal freedom.” liberty and ical 631,632, 116U.S. 30, 1951. Decided Oct. Perhaps I am too 29 L.Ed. 746. being thrilled

old-fashioned, but I confess lightly, them If we take words. those keep encroachment another one after privilege,

diminishing this constitutional there, we are I fear that a bit

bit here and unwittingly, rapidly, although

likely to move authoritarian, unfree,

in the direction principles have whose government

kind of unprincipled to Americans.

long seemed proving European history is once

Eastern privilege proving of this the value

more — system habitually law-enforcement that a compulsory self-incriminating

trusting to escape long recourse to

disclosures noteworthy, and torture.19 It is

bullying who,

too, officials de that those American

plorably, Degree use the brutalitarian Third unusually strong hostility to this

manifest if, times, privil

privilege.20 at So yet

ege protects guilty, often serves as my to the innocent.21 I think shield col

leagues have left little of that shield. sure, persons Wigmore To be some —

typical22 are no means brutalitar —who largely ian look one sentimentality

which fosters foolish towards

criminals, incorpo and wish that it were not

rated the Constitution. But even if that (which gravely

wish were warranted

doubt) way to realize it would be Constitution,

amending by judicial not

decisions which erase it.23 wag, reading terrifying Wigmore (3d 19. A after on Evidence 22. “1984,” say that, 1940). book if we do Ed. out, we find watch will truth at the bot- Pierre, v. St. of an See tom Orwell. 23. page 847, 850, A.L. Fried, 20. In re (dissenting opinion), certiorari R. 240 460, 1 A.L.R.2d 996. granted St. Pierre v. United (1940); Tale L.J. 87 L.Ed. Peo Taylor ple Forbes, moot, ex rel. dismissed as 143 N.Y. but case 38 N.E. 303. notes of bonds or completely their constitutional or bond. recognizance States in lieu obligation. naught sets at their definite interpretation This shows the Committee’s perhaps clearly most demonstrated This sureties; power require given thus Hammett, refused to in the case of who any thought to be course if process court’s lend the assistance statute, and the between the rule difference kind. prevails the terms the rule under hold that the thing It is a new act, former- rule-making 18 U.S.C. § ways privilege may be limited in various ly 687. § by previous obligation assumed. otherwise appears in principle Again the same Examples validly set limitations by appellants, on another rule much relied various re its are found in the exercise a differ- appears to have although it to us quirements for the of informa disclosure provision significance. That is ent tion set a correlative of the state as surety may “A F.R.Cr.P., 46(g), that rule Thus doc pursuit of certain activities. deposit of cash in the exonerated causes, réport must tors deaths their timely sur- amount of the bond or .a lists, druggists prescription must their show custody.” into render of defendant report mine owners must of acci details This, too, Note to be “a re- is said in the op mines, their vehicle motor dents practice,” existing statement of law report erators must details collisions part on U.S.C. now based in § Kneedler, highway. parte 243 Mo. Ex 3142, providing surrender of his for the L.R.A.,N.S., S.W. part principal by latter the bail. The 622; People Rosenheimer, 209 N.Y. , principal “The this is old. bail have L.R.A.,N.S. 977; 102 N.E. string, may pull string when- Razey, Kan. State Kansas v. ¡him they please, in their and render ever annota 282 P. A.L.R. discharge.” Anonymous, 231, quot- 6 Mod. Indiana, Ule State tation Taintor, Taylor 16 Wall. ed Ind. A.L.R. N.E. provision 372, 21 L.Ed. 287. But the with annotation at Commonwealth v. deposit significant; of cash is shows Joyce, (cit Mass. N.E.2d surety clearly quite that the owes an obli- cases). examples giv ing Various are also deposit’ beyond gation mere for which

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Field

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jan 7, 1952

Citation: 193 F.2d 92

Docket Number: 300-302, Dockets 22116-22118

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.