Document: 360 U.S. 423 79 S.Ct. 1257 3 L.Ed.2d 1344 Talmadge RALEY, Joseph Stern and Emmett Calvin Brown, Appellants,v.STATE OF OHIO. Anna H. MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE Nos. 175, 463. Argued April 22, 23, 1959. Decided June Mr. Morse Johnson, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants Raley others. Mrs. Thelma C. Furry, Akron, Ann Fagan Ginger, New York City, appellant Morgan. Messrs. Watson Hover Carl B. Rubin, the State of Ohio in No. 175. Earl W. Allison, Columbus, Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 These two appeals involve convictions four refusal to answer certain questions put them at sessions 'Un-American Activities Commission' established legislative branch Government.1 The had claimed privilege against self-incrimination refusing each questions. cases are before us second time; on prior judgments below were vacated causes remanded reconsideration light Sweezy Hampshire, 354 234, 77 1203, 1311, Watkins United States, 178, 1173, 1273. See 929, 1391, 1532. remand resulted a reaffirmance judgment without discussion, 167 St. 295, 147 N.E.2d 847, present we postponed further consideraton jurisdictional presented until arguments merits. 358 862, 863, 93, 96. 2 issues tendered by parties range broadly power Legislature, view existing federal legislation, investigate activities deemed subversive forms government within Nation, cf. Commonwealth Pennsylvania Nelson, 350 497, 76 477, 100 L.Ed. 640; compel disclosure matters interconnected with protected freedoms speech assembly, NAACP Alabama, 357 449, 78 1163, 1488; supra; existence an expressed interest such inquiry, its definition articulation person smmo ned, Scull Com. Virginia, 359 344, 838, 865, effect testimonial compulsion state immunity statutes not affording from prosecution, Knapp Schweitzer, 371, 1302, 1393. But our disposition these makes it unnecessary consider application principles just cited. informed Commission that they right rely afforded art. I, § 10, Constitution. Supreme Court, however, held presumed know law Ohio—that statute deprived protection therefore committed offense answering as which asserted privilege. We hold circumstances cases, Court affirming violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment must be reversed, except one conviction, equally divided. After Commission, speaking State, acted did, sustain Court's would sanction indefensible sort entrapment State—convicting citizen exercising clearly told him was available him. agree part Judge Stewart's dissenting he said: 'since defendants apprised commission time testifying refuse might incriminate them, could possibly following admonition contempt * *.' 164 page 563, 133 125. A rather detailed description proceedings made illuminate basis decision turning point review here. Morgan, 463, summoned interrogated mainly regard Communist Party activities. She appeared counsel. To question she answered, 'I regret I cannot your under Fifth Constitution, because do so give Committee opportunity me,' or some more abbreviated form words same effect. Such responses given virtually all almost every case proceeded directly ask next after receiving response. In no did direct question. members surprise incriminating, occasion Chairman asked her, 'Mrs. you aware fact failure questions—some this also tend embarrassing situation?' At another point, positively should like advise Amendment, permitted you. simply own convenience.' 4 Raley, Stern, successively occasion, about six months later. They labor movement. answered questions, but most Federal Constitutions. Most his assertions privilege, including initial ones, subject comment inquiry being once. On few occasions, when indicated their doubt wheather any specific incriminating. whether recollected interview. took required speak recalled interview, assured existed details interview: 'If recall it, recollection, then privileged claim rights Constitution This other only ones even approached directing Raley; finally confer counsel determine applied, accord; then, upon affirmative reply Raley's counsel, passed once question.'2 5 appear inquiry. giving name, very next, question, called address. him, 'Is there something nature character home live admit make criminal prosecution?' Stern's continued answer, directed refused. subseuent again self-incrimination, great majority worked out short whereby understood claiming particular question.3 if go into opinions require them. 'Not doing, yourself.' occasions requested residence, those neither nor invoked assertion request renewed.4 6 Brown subjected He While never many (as three appellants) available, engaged long colloquies attempt clarify using privilege.5 Chairman's concern is inexplicable than statements create impression appearing When clear answer. couple engaging colloquy either having privilege; put.6 7 extends, far here relevant, committee grants prosecutions penalties 'on account transaction, matter, thing, concerning testifies'; declares testimony appearance 'shall used evidence proceeding' testifying. Rev.Code, 101.44. For reasons unexplained, suggested appellants, fact, above statement evident, Commission's actions totally inconsistent available. thought gave positive advice used. As testified procedings below: 'It policy (to) press felt incriminating nature. instance, whenever witness question—I believe question—Are have ever been member communist party, refused it. Frequently commission.' 8 Indictments found various Brown—who indicted tried together, different court Morgan—only indictment.7 There appears effort restrict indictments prosecution hand, Morgan her indictment.8 9 jury waived guilty relatively counts trial filing conclusions law. Appeals affirmed reversed count Stern.9 App. 75, 99—100, 136 315—316. It sufficient direction witnesses involved, willful. touchstone others whether, court's view, hil e judgment—as expressly stated, 99, 315, reversals indicated. 10 too judge. judge acquitted pertinent duplicative remaining counts, ruled plea valid, referred solely appropriate provision guaranteeing anteeing freedom compulsory self-incrimination. Const., 10. Because this, advised rejected. Further constitutional claims summarily Appeals—a appeal Brown—affirmed stated opinion. 11 appeal, though convictions, abandoned reliance theories courts below. fair reference States adequate invoke finding made. pages 538—539, 111—112. And discuss theory relied Brown; entirely independent Appeals. placed statute. automatically preclude answers compellable, since 'the granted precluded possibility justifying refusal' grounds 553, 120, necessary. Various objections noted, contentions supra, adhered former judgments. 12 First. examine jurisdiction over appeals. Appellants assert 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. grant 'where drawn validity ground repugnant treaties laws favor validity.' notices phrased attacks constitutionality authorizing providing immunity. does suffice: essential explicit timely insistence statute, laws.' Charleston Savings & Loan Ass'n Alderson, 324 182, 185, 65 624, 627, 89 857. Despite import order postponing consideration till hearing merits, see Rule 16(4) U.S.C.A.,10 support burden demonstrating attack courts, none Ac cordingly dismissed. 236, 1204. rights, privileges immunities below, 1257(3), papers petitions certiorari, public importance presented, certiorari. 2103, 2103. 13 take merits requires proper challenge grounds, convicted understand unavailable. lower adequacy involved courts' discussion cases. discussed extent desired both 87—90, 308—310. Morgan's refers contention defendant, recites due process 14 assignments error show conviction violative process, guaranteed while 'charged notified rejected Commision.' claim,11 holding generally reasoning 'apply equal force Brown.' 532, 108. can presentation highest passes Manhattan Life Ins. Co. Cohen, 234 123, 134, 34 874, 877, 58 1245. think satisfy statutory requirement sought vindicated 1257(3).12 15 Second. conclude rendered violate exception later noted. need decide demanded investigating bodies rejection has necessary punishing contempts Congress. Quinn 349 155, 75 668; Emspak 190, 202, 687, 694, 99 997; Bart 219, 712, 1016. Nor reversal notice analougous contexts insisted investigators required. 353, 843, 865. that; who agent position assurances, existed, behavior toward fourth obviously impression. Other belief applicability characterize whole conduct identical what all. Yet crime said defined declining relevant possible removed valid exists law.13 Accordingly, based constitute offense. suggestion intent deceive repeat Cf. Sorrells 287 435, 442, 53 210, 212, 413. may issue commands citizens, sanctions, language vague underfined afford warning transgress Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 83 888. Inexplicably contradictory ordaining have, fashion, judicially denied sanctions. Cardiff, 344 174, 73 189, 97 200. Here contradictory. active misleading. Johnson 318 197, 63 549, 87 704. dismissed legally erroneous, remains voice presently appellans.14 clause permits obtained circumstances. 16 reach contrary conclusion joining speculation behaved way regardless impermissible excuse fatal defects assuming expresses defiance beforehand, will continue defiant explanation wants wanted. Flaxer 147, 151, 191, 193, 183. alleged personal attitudes defective ways, course Neither find affirmance refusals occurred assurances became explicit. Certainly reason reconsider attitude manifested throughout interviews appellants. carve segments; record suggest picture negation followed acquiescence use. 17 Finally, argued supportable indicates, shown Stern,15 stands sole rests. us, matter plain. Under exist incriminate. assumed, determination disagreed answer; correct ordered response incriminate.16 Four affront ignoring Commision's given, whose negated. obvious much 'entrapped' ishea rdly say effect, Stern: 'We recognize care where really how saying incriinate you, reject answer.' opened risk wrong properly incriminatory. this; wrong, telling applied peril incriminatory, consistently thereby assumed basic premise him—that existed—was hundred percent error. Brethren remain unpersuaded score, accordingly divided 18 19 writs Morgan; 20 STEWART 21 CLARK, whom FRANKFURTER, HARLAN WHITTAKER join. 22 affirmed. Like reverse we, too, Stewart, Ohio's But, read opinion, swept whisk broom carpet sweeper. Our Brothers broad swath. 23 Stewart 'they fllo wing it' queries. Brother BRENNAN'S characterizes action 'indefensible convicting him.' true concur went out, shows entrapped.1 24 'Where reside, Stern?' accept privilege2 twice unequivocally persisted refusal. invalidate is, therefore, Stern. 'entrapment' convicted, clear, bad faith here,3 irrelevant. test commanded regardless. directed, categorically instructed so.4 25 Admitting 'obviously (given) exist,' still affirm ground. overlook sweep t i facts record. stern entrapped availability forming indictment us. Unlike others, specifically posture hence lack process. joint Common Pleas convicted. Hamilton County, Franklin County. decided single 529, 104, convictions. applicable provisions General Code, 12137, provided 'a witness, lawfully required' punished 'as contempt.' 12845, those, 'to inquiry.' quoted text, exchange between occurred: 'Chairman Renner: consult recollect 'The Witness: ben apply, desire use Counsel (for Commission) proceed.' Whereupon put. instance consulted accord: explain yourself acknowledging location headquarters Local 766 date? don't believe, Chairman, asserting my Isaacs. (The Commision Counsel.) privileges. nevertheles Just 'Mr. Berger (Raley's counsel): hear read. Read please. '(Several reporter.) Berger: That thought. '(The conferred counsel.) line forthwith Counsel,jus moment. replying you? Section 1, Article insist recite full precise article section Bill Rights reply, resorting sections, let understanding say, answer,' means. means privilege,' mean full; correct? correct.' One follows: chair Counsel. excused previous trying easier plead 'By Isaacs: 'Q. making denial started before? A. privilege.' What same'? same,' preceding me, linking up first You answer? refuse. didn't mean. said, 'invoked.' Do word 'invoked' means? same.' Later, again: Each replied saying, mean; amendment can't forced testify myself. same, right; projected me— Will question? By time. am same." cleared up, least while: mean, manner phrased, invoke—see—the see? wanted.' illustrative: February 1950, caused distributed leaflet issued Workers Club, 1064 Flint Street? Is fact? asking deny fact. If why me affirm? Answer Brown. Amendment.' asked. Sixteen 'These minor fractions numbers pleaded. omissions several pleas when, handing record, statement. reversals. postponed, address themselves, outset briefs oral argument, jurisdiction.' Said court: case, (Quinn 155 (75 668, 964)) mandate bodies, national state, cited contempt, directive judicial tribunals nation 545, 115. Clearly binding violation through precisely match dispositive merely absence priviege variation theme, sharper focus decision. Dewey City Des Moines, 173 198, 379, 380, 43 665. was, essence, knowledge actions, considered unlawfully added contenion change Twining 211 78, 29 14, 97, discussed. Sinclair 279 263, 299, 49 268, 273, 692, holding. dealt investigation legal entertained, explicitly error, entertaining erroneous good defense witness. wholly inapposite declined No treated entire involving self-incrimination; accordingly, we. Commission. well quote context: educational background? Amendment. illegal institution attended school hesitate reveal educated? No, business. that, understand, feel business? same. May (Going question) employment recent years, Brown?' Courts basis, free irrelevant court, case. here, postulating Murdock Memphis, Wall. 590, 636, 429, proposition 7; Bi-Metallic Investment Board Equalization, 239 441, 444, 36 141, 142, 60 372. 'except 564, 126. mind seem Brown's 'And background?' pleading pressed responded business.' further, reverted thus conviction. sufficiency will, course, open remand. constitutions (Ohio federal) resides? prosecution? answr Isaacs (the Counsel): chairman directs relating address, residence Cincinnati. (By Isaacs): reside 3595 Wilson Avenue city Ohio; announced 'willful' 'deliberate' 543, 114. note supra.

Category: 2