Document: 349 U.S. 219 75 S.Ct. 712 99 L.Ed. 1016 Philip BART, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 117. Argued April 5, 1955. Decided May 23, Messrs. James T. Wright, Washington, D.C., A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Mr. Robert W. Ginnane, respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 On November 20, 1950, petitioner was indicted under 2 U.S.C. § 192, U.S.C.A. refusing to answer thirty-two questions put him by a subcommittee Committee on Un-American Activities House Representatives. During trial in District Court Columbia, Government abandoned twenty-four these counts. The Judge, sitting without jury, found Bart guilty remaining eight charges.1 appeal, Appeals Columbia Circuit reversed judgment upon three counts and, one judge dissenting, affirmed as others.2 From that decision, we granted certiorari3 and set case down argument along with two companion cases. Quinn v. United States, 155, 668, Emspak 190, 687. In response subpoena, appeared before June 21, 1950. He then general manager both Freedom Press Co., Inc., which publishes Daily Worker, Worker itself. course interrogation, members committee counsel posed various dealing Bart's background, his activities, alleged associates. Among were five which, because petitioner's refusal answer, led convictions now scrutiny. particular inquiries involve name when he came this country child, it changed years ago pursuant New York court order,4 father's name, identity officials Ohio section Communist Party 1936.5 To concerning or family raised objections pertinency; other, unequivocally pleaded privilege against self-incrimination. 3 finding guilty, rejected defenses merit. Before Appeals, defense lack pertinency. majority thought abandonment effect erased from record they thus faced 'naked refusals answer'6 did not require affirmative rulings committee. We cannot agree. fact made witness entitled clear-cut ruling at time, even though claims later be invalid. supra. Without such ruling, evidence requisite criminal intent violate 192 is lacking. An one-half after serve retroactively eliminate need ruling. If requirement satisfied time hearing, nunc pro tunc objection.7 Therefore, issue us is, stood completion whether apprised committee's disposition objections. 4 At no directly overrule self-incrimination Nor indirectly informed position through specific direction answer. juncture, Congressman Case suggestion chairman 'be advised possibilities contempt'8 failure respond, but rejected. stated: 5 'No. has counsel. Counsel knows law. Proceed, Tavenner.'9 6 A few moments later, inquired certain details marriage, following colloquy took place: 7 'Mr. Unger (Counsel petitioner). Chairman, what concern anybody here— 8 Walter. permit you appear your client purpose advising client. You apparently are old enough have had some experience court. 9 Unger. Yes, indeed. 10 Of course, know there many preliminary asked witnesses, leading up point. As propounded will readily learn is. Just advise don't argue committee, rule objections.'10 11 questioning proceeded basis. 12 Because consistent objections, left speculate about risk possible prosecution contempt; given clear choice between standing objection compliance ruling.11 defect laying necessary foundation conviction stand criteria forth more fully 13 Our makes unnecessary consider other contentions. below remanded directions enter acquittal. 14 Reversed. 15 REED, whom MINTON joins, dissenting. 16 This controlled entirely enunciated second ground decision 668. shall here repeat our comments regarding its application out dissent But agree sufficiently Fifth Amendment pertinency held violating 192. For establishes, courts below, knew grounds accepted committee; required answer; willfully refused stated Quinn, p. 677, 'the resort any fixed verbal formula indicate objection. So long forced guess cause complain.' Under think extract places status who 'has 17 Walter: Did ever hold positions than newspapers? 18 Bart: I did. 19 What they? 20 organizer head different times, years. 21 Where? 22 Illinois Pennsylvania, among many. 23 Tavenner: March 28, 1936, shows been Ohio. That correct, not? 24 Most likely. 25 Well, Ohio, do 26 exact period mentioned. It ago. 27 Who during there? (Count 8, emphasis supplied.) 28 object question. it, my rights accordance Article V Constitution, furthermore protest question numerous people infringed their American citizens. 29 think, Bart, should point testimony relating associated could way incriminate Amendment. 30 Unger: like correct you, Tavenner. 31 32 told worked work, Party? 33 Permit me Tavenner, counsel, error interpretation Constitution so far concerned, witness, right assert right—no right, let make plain— 34 procedure attorney permitted client, answers may 35 previous testify himself. 36 advice am myself, 37 asking yourself. state names persons you. 38 an attempt part use myself well others, occasions. 39 And therefore refuse answer? 40 answer.' 41 above pertains only count 8.* also four constitute well. However, since sufficient sustain judgment, show majority. Since view rejected, agreement that, shows, waived prior affiliation activities. Rogers 340 367, 71 438, 95 344; 91 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 203 F.2d 45, 51. 42 might better practice congressional committees follow specifically overruling witnesses directing manner commonly followed courts. feel, however, case, where still violation would affirm below. 43 HARLAN, 44 reasoning II dissenting 704, page 709. said add follows. 45 Even Court's standard 'apprisal', convincing must understood Subcommittee insisting involved indictment. refer indictment charge substance same question, namely, it. following: 46 (Committee Member). States? 47 Bart. already answered 48 Walter Chairman). it? 49 (Bart's Counsel). spending good deal all due respect Chair, absolutely bearing here. 50 opinion. 51 52 Case. lead to, certainly customary, interrogating come States countries, came, shown passport. There nothing improper States. 53 Are suggesting inquiry man old? talking 10-year-old boy. 54 moment. Tavenner able proceed, questions, Case, ask desire. suggest, refresh witness' recollection telling assumed present name? Proceed. 55 naturalized citizen? 56 Yes. 57 How become naturalized? 58 Through process father. 59 60 dealt 61 When father 62 remember. 63 minute. 64 '(Witness confers counsel.) 65 About 66 Do tell 67 doesn't trying line highly one. 68 within province. determines proper proper, determine that. 69 true. 70 seems tried respectfully why ashamed mother's name. difference can possibly here? 72 going arguing giving legal opinion, worth anything. 73 further comment 74 All right. claim citizenship virtue citizenship; right? 76 77 citizen 78 own 79 80 reply concerned. 81 if used became 82 Chairman— Let 83 fact, vote registered known. 84 legally change 85 Many 86 87 city York. 88 court? 89 Yes; 90 His understand. from? 92 93 Harrison understand chairman's question? 94 My here, pertaining inquiry, me. matter public record? 96 Correct. 97 suppose law innocent face can't arbitrarily ignored. running consequences. 98 again, indicated very plainly contumacious regard. states large number Don't see fit. 100 contempt fails simple changed. 101 Tavenner.'* 102 sought ways impressed intelligence considered unfounded, wished 103 reasons dissent, contentions, save say them untenable. 104 conviction. unreported, Criminal 1746—50 (D.D.C.). opinions Court, denying motions dismiss indictment, sub nom. Emspak, F.Supp. 1010, Id., 1012. 45. 347 1011, 872, 1134. Hearings Regarding Infiltration Labor Unions, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. Part III, 2636. phrased follows: 'Count Three 'What defendant Four defendant's Five 'Under Six from. Eight 'Who (sometime 1936).' Transcript Record, 109, U.S.App.D.C., 372, 47. Cf. Rumely, 345 41, 48, 543, 547, 770: 'In event, Rumely's duty judged refusal.' Hearings, supra, note 4, Ibid. 2637 (Italics added.) instance, observed incriminating, disputed ruled chair. repeated objection, stating felt incriminating nature immediately abandoned. See id., 2638—2639. * Eight—Who R. attaches importance last paragraphs quoted above, Walter's rejoinder 'Of objections.' supplied Court.) Read context, excerpts expressing impatience interruptions unable read record, done, indicating avoiding taking

Category: 0