*1 STATES. UNITED BROWN v. March Argued 16, 1958. Decided
4.No. October petitioner. L. the cause Myron Shapiro argued Wegman. J. Bertram him the brief was on With F. John Davis argued the cause for the United: States. On the Rankin, brief were Solicitor General Assistant *2 Attorney Anderson, General Beatrice Rosenberg and Carl H. Imlay. delivered the opinion of the
Mr. Justice Stewart Court. was sentenced to 15 months’ imprison-
ment for
criminal
stemming from his refusal to
testify before a federal grand jury. His conviction was
affirmed
the Court of
247 F. 2d
Appeals,
332. The
case was brought here primarily to
validity
review the
the procedure which
resulted
the contempt adjudica-
tion.
A grand jury in the Southern District of New York investigating possible violations of Part II of the Inter- state Commerce Act2 a subpoena issued directing peti- tioner to appear and testify as to “all and everything you which know regard to an alleged violation of Sections 309, 322, Title 49, United States Code.” response to subpoena appeared and, being after sworn, answered a few preliminary questions. He was then asked six further questions concededly rele- vant grand jury’s inquiry. These he refused to answer upon ground of possible self-incrimination. After consulting with his lawyer, who was continuously present in an adjoining anteroom, the petitioner persisted in his refusal to answer, although advised at length by the Assistant United States Attorney that the applicable 1 49 Stat. 922, Stat. . (d). C. 305§ 2 Commonly known as the Act, Motor Carrier Stat. as amended, Stat. 49 seq. C. 301 et § .§>. as immunity prosecution complete statute conferred petitioner might matter concerning which tes- any privilege have “you do not tify, that, therefore, plead the Fifth Amendment.” shifted to Thereupon proceedings the scene of the courtroom, grand jury sought where the aid After of what had tran- judge. being apprised district spired jury judge in the the. district heard room, immunity argument by scope extensive counsel as to the statute. applicable afforded witness under the ruled that Following a weekend recess the district would be accorded statute petitiqner asserted, as the he had immunity privilege extensive and directed that therefore return to the *3 the grand jury questions. room and answer the Later same day grand jury again the returned to'the courtroom “to the aid The request and assistance of the Court.” reporter the official judge through district was advised petitioner obey that the had refused to the court’s order questions. to answer the judge questions then addressed the same
petitioner grand jury’s question in the Each presence. pos- was met a refusal to the upon ground with answer thereupon sible self-incrimination. The petitioner was directed, explicitly judge question, the to answer each just and he explicitly judge inquired as refused. The whether, petitioner the in if persist his refusal he would again returned to the room and were asked the questions there. The that petitioner replied he would. After further argument by counsel, the district held in imposed sentence.
Throughout proceedings peti- the courtroom the represented by counsel, tioner was unsuccessfully who advanced three basic contentions: A(1) witness who tes- a grand j'ury investigating tifies before offenses under the Motor Act is accorded statutory Carrier immunity testimony. his upon based prosecution subsequent is not coex- conferred, it is immunity
(2) Even if some self- privilege against the constitutional tensive with Court, any event, the District (3) In incrimination. contempt without in criminal adjudging 42 (b) of of Rule requirements following procedural Procedure, deprived of Criminal Federal Rules The same contentions process law. petitioner of due we are asked to hold addition, are here. In advanced an abuse imprisonment of months' sentence Court’s discretion. the District Act of Motor Carrier determining (e) § immunity coexten- statutory with clothed incriminate not to privilege sive with his constitutional Appeals were himself, the District Court and Court plainly statutory language correct. The relevant or subpenaed “. . testi- unambiguous: any person . and investigation fying connection matter under rights, privileges, chapter shall have same duties, liabil- subject and immunities to the same such matter arose under ities, penalties though as 1 I chapter this title Interstate Commerce [Part . ...”3 of this purpose The obvious effect Act] subséetion, The full text of the appears as it the United States Code, necessary purposes is as follows: “So far chapter, of this and the members and examiners Commission *4 joint power thereof and shall to boards have same administer by testimony oaths, require subpena and the attendance and of wit tariffs, contracts, agree production books, papers, nesses and the documents, ments, testimony by deposition, relating and and to take any investigation, matter under in a as Commission has matter arising chapter title; any person subpenaed under 1 of-this and or testifying any investigation in connection with matter under chapter rights, privileges, this shall have the same immunities and subject penalties though .duties, liabilities, and be same and chapter title, such matter arose under 1 of this unless otherwise provided chapter.” (d). in 49 U. this S. C. 305§ language immunity is to confer the same upon witness testifying investigation an under Part II of the Inter- state Act as is upon Commerce conferred one testifying in an investigation under Part I. Both Part I and Part II contain criminal sanctions, power and the of a grand jury investigate violations of either Part is unquestioned. The statute immunity which confers upon a witness
. in a testifying grand jury investigation under Part I was . enacted 1893.4 For more than half a century it has person 27 Stat. 49 U. S. C. 46. “No shall be excused from §
attending testifying producing or books, papérs, and from tariffs, contracts,- agreements, and documents before the Interstate Com Commission, subpoena commission, merce or in obedience to the signed subpoena by be whether or issued' one or more such commis sioners, any .proceeding, otherwise, or in cause or criminal or based upon growing any chapter or out of violation of 1 of alleged ground testimony evidence, title on the" or for reason that the or documentary otherwise, required him, may or' tend to criminate subject penalty person him to or no him or forfeiture. But shall subjected any penalty prosecuted be or or forfeiture for or on any transaction, thing, concerning matter or which he account evidence, documentary otherwise, testify, produce or before said or ,of subpoena, subpoena commission, or in obedience to its or the Provided, any proceeding: That them, or in such case or either exempt punish testifying prosecution person so shall testifying. Any person perjury in so who shall committed ment any neglect testify, or to answer lawful or refuse to attend contracts, agreements, books, papers, tariffs, inquiry, produce or to subpoena documents, power so, in obedience to the if in his do guilty of offense requirement of the commission shall be an or lawful by competent jurisdiction a court of shall upon conviction thereof $5,000, $100 less than nor more than punished fine of not year more one or both such by imprisonment for not than or imprisonment.” fine and Stat; 904, provides: person “No 49 U. S. C. which See also 32 § subjected penalty or forfeiture for prosecuted or be shall be thing concerning matter, transaction, or which or account on. an^- documentary otherwise, evidence; or may testify produce or he chapter suit, prosecution under 1 of this title any proceeding, or *5 46 immunity from confers this statute settled that
been privilege constitutional with prosecution coextensive witness that self-incrimination, and against Walker, testify. Brown v. to lawfully refuse therefore „The the doctrine which context (1896). S.U. through the reaffirmance history its originated by this Court recently so re-examined years have been a 422, as to make it Ullman U. it ground that here. Suffice to retrace needless exercise “part has of our Brown Walker become repeat .that is S., at 438. It thus constitutional fabric.” the constitutional clearly day question late'in the too I of the provided under Part sufficiency immunity Act. fully is not im- contending immunity that grasps II at straws.
ported into Part of 49 above-quoted language points He out II the (d) incorporates C. which into-Part §305 I separated by only of Part is semi- immunity provisions whiqh in- provision gives from the Commission colon vestigative powers under Part II.. footnote He See us would therefore have rewrite section so as make provision applicable only immunity witnesses appearing Commission, appearing before the not to those or in a before a court. Such construction only plain language, also, would not do but violence Appeals the Court of to the whole structure of observed, the Interstate Commerce Act. 247 F. 2d, See at 336-337.
The petitioner argues alternatively that even if some immunity II granted grand jury witness, Part to a immunity, is I, not commensurate Part that its scope constitutionally is therefore insufficient. (d) The contention'is that provides immunity § from Provided, or amendatory supplemental or law thereof thereto: person testifying, exempt prosecution, That so shall be or punishment, perjury testifying.” committed so *6 of the to violations related only for offenses prosecution appearing the clause of Act itself because Motor Carrier neces- far as of the section —“So beginning at the 3. footnote this'chapter.” See of sary purposes for the immunity provision the this clause limits Assuming that of wit- only limits clearly at it all, of the section .the'class scope not the will, attach, immunity the nesses to whom “subpoe- petitioner immunity, conferred. of the. The matter under investi- in connection with naed ... [a] purposes for the necessary . . chapter this . gation under that class. clearly within chapter” of this n could not that provided thus Congress answering ques- himself not incriminate would or sub- prosecuted not put tions to He could “be him.. any of for or on account jected any penalty or forfeiture [might] he concerning which thing, matter or transaction, had an He therefore C. testify. § . . .” 49 U. S. he was questions duty to answer unqualified directed to do. upon the attack petitioner’s turn then to
We fol- the District Court validity procedure of the which procedure, in This contempt.5 him adjudicating lowed only of the safé- contended, it is robbed what and his counsel were advised in advance under be. “Mr. The Government's was to Wachtell: point standing proceeding is this: At this of the nature this merely requesting the assistance of the Court. jury is still request appears, if it as will be would is that What the Government’ testimony grand jury reporter, the witness of the shown request of this refusal, the will then persisting in his Government grand jury, itself,-in presence of the will Court Court him, first, he is questions witness and ask whether put the six to the now, and, second, would he them if he willing them answer to answer again grand jury again. And if the witness were sent back persists physical presence of the Court or here and now in the. refuses summary contempt answer, that the witness be held in his refusal (a) of Criminal Procedure. the Federal Rules Rule propose.” I That is what “The Court: defense, prepare opportunity guards notice, of innocence presumption of the but also hearing, trial. a fair criminal rights other basic to argu petitioner’s breadth of the apparent view of the case aspect analysis of may promote it ment, This not involve. what it does at the outset emphasize contempt was sense is not a situation where unfair raising possible judge, issues personal human emotions. operation resulting ness Sacher Cooke 539; United Cf. States, S.U. Offutt involving of “misbehavior” 11. This is not a case conduct petitioner’s as to the nature factual issues *7 or of the court “presence” in the and it occurred whether the administration “so near as to obstruct thereto parte parte Savin, Ex Ex 267; S. justice.”6 Cf. U. Nye Cuddy, States, 131 U. S. question does not Moreover, 44-53. its lawful power punish of the disobedience of court to summarily, and so contempt,7 order as a criminal to do if in the of the court presence the disobedience occurs or sight hearing judge.8 of the than considerably issue thus is narrower presented .at argument would petitioner’s the broad strokes of the (1). 6 18 U. S. C. §401 7 18 C. Power court: §401. punish by power “A fine United States shall have court authority, discretion, contempt of imprisonment,
or at its its such other, and none as—
“(3) writ, order, process, resistance to its lawful Disobedience or rule,,decree, or command.” Contempt: Rule Criminal SummaRT1'Disposition. pun “(a) contempt A criminal summarily judge certifies that he or heard the ished if saw con constituting contempt duct and that it was committed in the presence the court. The order of recite actual shall signed by entered and shall of record.” facts boils down to' the Indeed, argument suggest. first disobeyed first that when contention jury room the court had no grand in the court’s order contempt proceedings initiate criminal but choice (b) provisions under the Rule against once, him at that it Criminal'Procedure,9 and of the Federal Rules it and by calling him before fights therefore his violated questions answer the opportunity him another giving argument This contempt. him in adjudicating before relationship between court disregards the historic nor precedent in neither grand jury. support, It finds reason. great independence
A grand jury is clothed court, it remains an many areas, appendage but function powerless perform investigative its without aid, compel itself to the tes- powerless the court’s because timony process It is the court’s which sum- of witnesses. mons the and it give testimony, witness attend and if, after compel testify the court which must a witness to appearing, he refuses to do so. first refused to
When answer jury’s questions, guilty contempt. he was of no He was Disposition Upon Contempt: “(b) Rule 42. Criminal Notice Hearing. contempt except provided A criminal in subdivi *8 (a) prosecuted sion of this rule on The shall notice. notice place allowing hearing, shall state the time time a reasonable preparation defense, for the of the and shall state-the essential facts constituting contempt charged the criminal it such. describe by given orally judge open The notice shall be the in court in the presence or, application of the défendant on of the United States attorney attorney appointed purpose, or of an the court for that order to or an order of arrest. The defendant is an show cause by jury Congress in entitled to a trial case which an act of provided provides. so He is to admission to bail as in these entitled contempt charged disrespect If the involves to or criticism of rules. disqualified judge, judge presiding a is at the trial or hear ing Upon finding except the consent. or with defendant’s verdict guilt fixing punishment.” enter an order the court shall ordered until the court in his refusal persist to
entitled
frustrated
it
therefore, was
Unless,
him to answer.
,
had
do
jury
grand
purpose,
in its investigative
If
help.
court
exactly
it did—turn
what
self-incrimina
against
privilege
that the
ruled
court had
have been the
invoked, that would
properly
had been
tion
ruling upon
an adverse
Even after
end
the.matter.
his.
guilty of no con
still
privilege,
petitioner
was
claim of
unequivocally
upon
It
the court
tempt.
incumbent
Ying Wong
Cf.
Gim
to answer.
to order
The
D.
When his jury’s questions, again tioner refused answer order, court’s he was now direct disobedience of the point At that con- guilty contempt. the first time quite prop- tempt unquestionably could proceeding erly have been initiated. Since disobedience presence court, in the actual place order did not take by the only and thus could known to the court be made taking have been con- evidence, proceeding would upon hearing conformity ducted notice and See Carlson 2d (b). Rule 42 209 F. (C. A. Cir.). 1st upon A than punishing more intent the witness aiding might in its investigation well have just .taken Instead, such course. the court made another testify. unequivo- to induce the Again .effort cally him advising statute afforded him complete immunity, the court directed answer questions. haye Had the petitioner so, done he would purged himself of-contempt, grand jury’s investi- gation proceeded.10 His refusal, could deliberate have very petitioner’s directing contention that the court’s act of privilege against him to answer his somehow violated self-incrimina clearly tion thus incorrect.
51 States, cf. Yates v. United contempt, his 355 continuing 75, left the court no choice.11 Since the diso- 66, U. S. clearly it was presence, bedience the court’s occurred (a). 42 proper proceed under Rule Procedure is Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal simply explicit” no innovation. It makes “more to be long-settled usages governing of law in contempt proceedings.12 followed decision of this No propriety summary Court has con- questioned ever in aid of a tempt proceedings grand jury investigation. Repeated decisions of this and the Courts of Court silentio, sub pro- at such a Appeals have, approved least cedure, stemming usages as it does from the of the com- ago mon law.13 Indeed less than decade this Court did question sufficiently not consider the doubtful to merit In light, therefore, discussion.14 .of both reason 11 petitioner’s claim, We do not discuss the first in the advanced Appeals, proceeding Court of District Court was conducted “secrecy,” because the record does not show this to be the fact. States, 1, 7; 12 Sacher United Advisory v. 343 U. S. Notes of Rules, A., Committee on 18 U. S. C. Rule 42. 13Rogers States, States, v. United Wilson v. United 340 U. 361, 369, semble; Henkel, Hale United 43, 46; 221 v. 201 U. S. Curcio, States v. (C. 470, Cir.), F. A. on other 234 2d 473 2d rev’d (1957); Lopiparo United grounds, F. S. 118 Weinberg, (C. United States Cir.); 394, v. 2d 87 A. 8th 65 F. 2d (C. Cir.). law, practice A. For the see 2d earlier at common People Phelps Fancher, Thompson 1874) ex rel. (N. v. & Cook Y. 467; People Hackley Kelly, ex rel. 74, (1861); v. 24 N. Y. 79-80 Harris, In re Belle Heard (1884); 5, 8-9, 129, 5 P. Utah 130-132 Pierce, (Mass. 1851). 338, 8 Cush. 342-345 14 Rogers 340 U. S. attacked validity summary procedure by guilty which she found refusing testify grand jury. of criminal before a (See petitioner’s 21, 22, T., 1950, pp. 54-58; brief Ños. O. brief States, ibid., pp. 51-53.) opinion Neither the of the Court dissenting question. petition opinion nor the A discussed rehearing complained which of the Court’s silence on this issue *10 in affording we hold the court’s action the
authority, that finally penitentiae adjudicating locus before entirely him in was contempt proper. finally, the of 15 hold,
We sentence months’ not imprisonment was an abuse of the District Court’s statutory is no limit upon discretion. Because there sentencing power District Court’s cases of criminal con States, 165, v. S. this tempt, Green United 356 U. Court power not without review its exercise. Cf. Yates 356 U. S. Nilva v. United primarily S. 396. But the one the decision is to be “with the utmost Court, District made sense circumspection.” 'and Green responsibility States, supra, at 188. The record does not indicate that judge’s district decision was otherwise reached.- Be fore sentence counsel imposed, petitioner’s was was fully, patiently repeatedly heard.15
Affirmed. 6-10) Rehearing T., 1950, pp. (Petition for No. was O. denied. 341 U. imposed petitioner points The was in out that sentence excess by punishment maximum statute for substantive authorized comparison Act. A more violations Motor Carrier relevant might involving statutory be made to the offenses obstruction of punishable by years’ five justice, administration a maximum of imprisonment. S. C. 1503. The record shows that 18 U. §
jury investigating suspected violations of the Motor Carrier petitioner, by The Act but others. District Court was testimony “desired to elicit from informed very greatest importance, this ... is of the and the wit witness great very stumbling ness’s refusal to is a' block to answer investigations.” days investigation If and to all these within n proceedings his the termination these indicates willingness testify, will no doubt consider that the District Court of his sentence under upon fact in a motion reduction passing Procedure. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal with whom Warren, Justice Justice Chief Mr. Mr. Mr. Justice Brennan Black, Douglas, Mr. Justice dissenting. join, majority opinion, myself disagreement
I find scope of the immu- interpretation its not because of it sanctions question, but because nity provisions here summarily used below to convict him to 15 months’ to sentence of criminal proceedings (a) when imprisonment Rule (b). Rule 42 in accordance with should have been accorded Rule protections minimal denial of even the *11 pre- opportunity of an (b) deprived petitioner 42 extenuating cir- defense, or to pare legal demonstrate intent of plain satisfied neither the cumstances,1 and play. 42 of fair principles Rule nor the “shall” (b) contempts 42 that prescribes Rule criminal time for allowing a “reasonable prosecuted be on notice protections, and other preparation the of the defense” (a) provides 42 except in those instances wherein Rule of the court contempts presence that committed the that summarily. demonstrates “may” punished This prescribed general mode of was to be 42 (a) 42 covers (b). hand, On the other Rule Rule though inquiry, prosecutor 1 The indicated to the court Act, toward minor of the Interstate Commerce directed .violations concerning really, notorious part of an effort to discover facts was acid-throwing gangsters suspected complicity of in the Victor Riesel general racketeering New in the District of incident and Southern of the of intimation that York. In view total absence guilty Act or was himself of had violated the Interstate Commerce testify conduct, for his well criminal the actual basis refusal gangster reprisals, fear in such been fear of a not unreasonable have defense, Regardless.of legal significance of such a circumstances. Widger hearing see 244 F. 2d .would have provided opportunity presentation of such facts to the an length might well have affected sentence. contempt pro- only specific situations and even then summary. light not be the concern cedure need Congress both and this Court3 long demonstrated n it is contempt power, possible over abuse exceptional cir- 42, (a) obvious that Rule reserved threatening judge, include might These cumstances. F. dis- Hall, 2d or other acts United States the administra- rupting,court proceedings, obstructing Landes, tion of States v. the court’s business. United F. 2d 378. (a)
Rule 42 was not inserted order to Rules contempts. ease not prosecuting the difficulties It was practice having government meant to authorize the persons already had prosecutors force who committed con- tempts presence repeat outside the court action thus subject before the court and themselves deprivation of'their (b). Rule Given rights purpose its admittedly of Rule (a) precipitous and extremely character harsh consequences, this Court should procedure whereby a contempt countenance already completed presence may out of the .court’s in a reproduced pérformance command before the court justify summary disposition. say That is not to properly Government could not bring before *12 the court a second time. course, Of both the Government jury grand persuasion could use such additional questions. to obtain answers But that second re- fusal should not constitute a second contempt. Nor should justify alone imposing a more
2 See, generally, Landis, Congress Frankfurter Power of Over Contempts in Procedure in Criminal “Inferior” Federal Courts —A Study Separation Powers, in Harv. L. Rev. 1010. 3See, g., States, Cammer United 399; e. 350 U. S. v. Offutt States, Nye States, United 11; United 33; v. 313 U. S. States, Terry, parte Cooke Ex 517; v. 267 U. S. 128 U. S. Dunn, Anderson 204. 6 Wheat. appropriate would have been penalty severe than grand jury.4 contempt questions
After refused to answer the petitioner summarily have judge might very properly committed jail contempt for civil until he answered Russell, 358, Oriel v. 278 U. S. 363. See questions. Co., 221 442. Range 418, v Bucks Stove & Gompers (cid:127) In the recalci disputed. proceeding This is not such summarily trant committed is said to although witness In in his re carry keys jail pocket. own See Nevitt, upon presentment, judge 117 F. 461. 448, Or, might open have notice in court of a criminal con given tempt proceeding procedures to be commenced under the set so (b), forth Rule the Government concedes. That proceeding the normal manner these cases. States, Wong Ying See Gim v. United D. App. 98 U. S. C. 23, 231 F. 27, 776, 780; 2d Carlson v. United 209, F. 2d 216. pro-
But Government was not satisfied with such a cedure. On April 8, though.,ostensibly seeking the court’s obtaining assistance in to the questions, answers prosecutor never even faintly suggested any coercive remedy.5 Rather, spoke from thé outset he in terms assuming would continue his refusal testify and made known to the court that he would seek summary disposition (a) immediately. under Rule 42 finding contempt, After he judge asked the to. 4Although questions during district asked other proceeding courtroom, judge’s this second in the certificate makes clear that found was for refusal to answer the six questions substantive and not for other answers. Cf. Carlson 209, F. 2d 216. practice, contempts punished before the court are no more severely than jury. those before the See n. infra. opinion. See the statement n. 5 of the Court’s But see n. infra.
56 judge sentence the a substantial
give He then in the penitentiary. 15 months complied —with judge the purge a clause which judge the to omit asked deny to bail and the urged he Thereafter did.6 request. to that judge promptly acceded nothing offered statement, was Beyond short the seriousness Attorney to show United States Assistant investi- contempt.7 The was of the offense than a fine. 71 Stat. punishable by no more gating V) (a). C. 352, (Supp. § S.U. more
I assert that could not be do not investigation,8 than but where serious the offense case, hearing is such in this disparity there as exists subject rebuttal, held to at demonstrate, should to jury purpose significance least n investigation, the subject relationship witness’ of the investigation, matter under effect witness’ on the of the investigation. recalcitrance future The opinion judge may Court’s observes that the reduce days termination sentence within of these proceedings power under Rule 35. But has been to discretionary, held Flores v. United 238 F. See n. infra. only expression by Attorney the Assistant United States about grand jury investigation the connection with the then during progress following was the statement made discussion of punishment: witness, “The it information is desired elicit this represent Court, very greatest importance, I very stumbling great witness’ refusal answer is a block investigation investigations.” and to all these 8 Comparing penalty possible this sentence with that under the obstructing justice, 18 U. C. is not the administration of § meaningful prosecution because such a would have been defendants, safeguards normally afforded entitled all of criminal including, course, very protection by jury. basic of trial *14 Miller F. 2d 561, United 224 and does 2d penitentiary term in com in sense make-a any not Exer contempt. a for jail commitment civil parablevto petitioner any less power 35 does not make cise of Rule failure to invoke civil Also, a criminal. convicted judge intended the sentence indicates that to be and not punitive coercive.9 is only
It involved here— legal is asserted that issue give that there no need to scope immunity was —so. (b).10 42 petitioner time defense Rule to.'prepare evi- right .present But this overlooks the other courts had dence extenuation and show what in argument neg- in done similar circumstances. This also an importance affording judge opportunity lects the A judge goaded— reflection. should not be forced —or into spur-of-the-moment imprison- decisions where the person ment is in the balance. There is no indication that return judge expected the district on the afternoon of within a time April Yet, 8. short return, after its the judge had convicted the him in prison séntenced to 15 months for his conduct and had denied bail. Neither counsel sen- discussed the given, and, tences in comparable severity cases from the of the sentence it is clear here, judge not
9 despite This would seem true the confusion existent in the court sentencing just prosecutor room before wherein the asked judge sentence, for a “substantial and that is done so much punitive effect as' it for the would be coercive effect of the sentence.” just prosecutor This requested was stated after the had purge to omit a clause! 10Although disagrees petitioner’s argument this Court with con cerning applicability immunity.provisions the breadth question, grant recog Appeals opinion the Court of did bail and its point 332, nized aspects.” had some “novel 247 F. 2d 338. Thus, considering judge, it when the action taken the district must recognized question immunity that the was not frivolous. treating similar offenses.11 were judges
advised
othér
how
length
of sentence
statutory
limit for
There
15-month
contempts
Apparently,
of this character.
ever
contempt sentence
longest
is the
sentence
this-case
following
jury appear
involving.contempt of the
cases
in the Second Circuit: O’Connell
appellate
only
decisions
States, (three
purge clause),
with
cert.
F. 2d 201
months
granted
stipulation
S.
cert. dismissed on
of counsel
281 U.
Lang
(90
days
purge
F.
S.
2d 922
U.
667.
granted
clause),
cert. dismissed 286 U. S.
cert.
*15
Weinberg,
States
(60 days);
States
United
United
(cid:127)The
appellate
system
the federal
for
by any
sustained
court
questions
grand jury.12
of a court or
a refusal to answer
delay
given
enough
have
might
judge,
Even a short
to establish that the
rea-
time for research
Government’s
son
seeking
purge
ground-
omission of the
clause
Also,
less.13
took
time to consider the bail
Rogers
States,
v.
the courtroom:
United
179 F. 2d
aff’d
(four-month
testify
U. S. 367
sentence for refusal before court to
grand jury);
(C.
before
Green v.
F.
A.
United
2d 111
2d
Cir.) (six-month
telling
obey
sentence for
court he
order
would
produce
grand
date);
jury
records
at
States
before
a-later
A,
(C.
Cir.) (one
Field,
days
v.
Even
Cashman,
(D.
Y.)
punished
severely: In re
“To right not mean jury does trial of twelve and fairness fairness. Reason disregard reason and procedural contempt, demand, punishing even the effective needs for which the safeguards within while amply satisfied justice administration of can power at the time reach of so drastic same Eight days later, Appeals granted the Court of bail large has been at since. question April proceedings were conducted of whether proce subject caused the swift in secret is of some confusion April It 5 the courtroom was cleared. dure invoked. is clear that on grand jury returned to the court April It is also that on 8 the clear ostensibly assistance, room and that the further aid and Though the reporter happened earlier. read to the court what had likely secrecy transcript indicate, it would seem most does not so objected pro again fact, petitioner’s effect. In counsel “open with notice of and asked that he be served in court” cedure change charges. in this situation There is no indication of contempt proceeding. before the actual after refusal answer and Attorney has stated that in fact there The Assistant United States proceeding April A spectators in the courtroom on secret were *17 is allowed to have counsel. less secret because defendant no. supra. n. See also minimize abuse. While kept limits will within necessity recognizing has of experience shown also authority, experience has possess that courts proven purposes appropriate that restrictions fence in its exercise. Hence Con- power must gress, legislation dating back more than hundred put geographic procedural has restrictions years, upon power punish States courts . summarily contempt. . . deeply
“The did so for a reason imbedded Court system very neg our legal fact too often usually Times tension, periods lected. which are bring of war their aftermath, it to surface. their Reflecting doubt concern over untoward events arising in law of the First enforcement out War, World Mr. Justice Brandéis Mr. Justice gave quiet warning they Holmes observed that when ‘in the development liberty upon of our insistence procedural regularity has been a factor.’ Bur large McDowell, deau It is not nothing provisions that most of our Bill Rights are concerned with matters of procedure.
“That is what this case is ‘procedural reg- about — ularity.’ Not petitioners whether these have been guilty professionally of conduct but inexcusable, what tribunal should sit not judgment; whether they should be punished, but who out shoiild mete the appropriate punishment; whether a Federal court prevent has authority its proceedings being subverted, but authority how that should exercised so as to assure legal the rectitude of pro- ceedings and at same time not detract from the authority law itself.”
And, shortly thereafter, the Court adopted this view point. See v. United S. 11. The Offutt importance procedural regularity often in advising lies *18 giving must expect he of the defendant is an invalu reflection judicial Also, him time to prepare. to be no designed are of that procedures by-product able necessary demands to meet than precipitous more no need Here, there was demonstrated situation. of the saving in (except benefit for haste and resultant of pre and effort Attorney’s the-time office States already been notice). There had paring hearing for a on jury which a committed before fully giving a short time within prosecuted been might have preparation time for the of only reasonable “a supervisory power over its the defense.” This Court with justice courts, federal the administration of criminal in. not McNabb 332, 340, 318 U. S. should contempt procedures permit summary of the utilization necessary'for the preserva immediate action is where of the federal courts. respect dignity tion of the only summary procedures use weakens Improvident of respect.16 that case, in given type
In the of of light the sentences system I if any judge doubt in the federal would sum- marily penitentiary a witness to the for 15 months' send merely a testify grand jury investigation to refusing operating whether trucker is without an certifi- a ICC It is that much of the quite cate. obvious sentence was that investigation. some reason to It is not collateral purpose increasing punishment sufficient for the to act on the suspicion testify refusal of witness to racketeer, redound the interest on that deny him the protections Congress basis has fit seen all grand juries. accord to before If witnesses such play part factors are to in the sentence the witness is hearing entitled on notice. upon improper application 42/(a) peti Reliance of Rule case, unnecessary
tioner in this makes it to discuss the issue raised in 165, 193 356 U. S. (dissenting opinion) Green v. United Unfortunately, regu- the failure to adhere to procedural larity may glossed investigation over of matters burning interest, but it should public be remembered deprivation rights that the of a witness such an investigation apply precedent must as a in all people life, good both I suggest walks bad. that the full import of the decision -in this case recognized will not be at applied until it some future time in types other *19 investigations people. other I would reverse the conviction.