The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-02-10
AMIN ser
At LIBERTY
Oath of Secrecy Before
Grand Jury Is
Illegal.


Court on a writ of habeas corpus. with
out his counsel having to say a word
on his behalf, because the grand jury
had no right to swear him to secrecy.
There is no authority to administer an
oath of secrecy to any witness before
the grand jury. Such an oath is there
fore a nullity and witness coming
out of the grand jury room may, if he
will, stand upon a street corner and
proclaim to the world all that he has
seen and heard within the inquisitorial
| chamber.
1t was all over precisely in half an
hour High Sheriff Henry had the
petitioner in court at 10 o'clock a. m.
Amin had then lost about seventeen
hours of the liberty granted to him
by the United States Constitution and
of which he could only be justly de-
prived by due process of law. Deputy
| Attorney General Milverton appeared
for the Territory, and A. S. Humphreys
with Thompson e. Clemens for the petit
| toner.
Mr.. Milverton mentioned that the
writ had been served only at ten min
utes to nine o'clock that morning, and
| asked FOR time in which to prepare
a return.
Chief Justice Frear suggested that
counsel state the substance of what the
return would be and let the argument
proceed.
Mr.. Milverton briefly sketched the
proceedings ending in the sentence by
Judge Lindsay of Amin to imprison-
ment for three days without hard la
Dor. for contempt of court in reveal
ing to outsiders the evidence he had
given before the grand jury, contrary
to the oath of secrecy taken by him
as a witness.
Mr.. Humphreys said the petitioner
was ready to go on.
Chief Justice Frear asked if there
was authority of the grand jury to
administer an oath of secrecy.
Mr.. Milverton in reply quoted the
oath prescribed at the present term
by Judge Robinson. Piled with ques-
tons by Justices HartweI and Wilder
as well as the Chief Justice, the Depu-
ty Attorney General argued that Sc
crecy was an essential ingredient of
efficiency in the Investigations of the
grand jury Members of that body
themselves took an oath of secrecy.
The grand jury system would go to
pieces if publicity were allowed. There
were authorities showing that a wit
ness could not be compelled to dis
close what happened in the grand jury
room. and that grand jurors were SINH
larly privileged from compulsion of
revealing their proceedings. Unless
the grand jury system is absolutely to
break down." Mr. Milverton conclud- |
ed, you will have to sustain the ac-
ton of Judge Lindsay in finding the |
petitioner guilty of contempt" |
Chief Justice Frear said that the |
court did not care to hear counsel for |
the prisoner. The petitioner sought re-
lease from Imprisonment for violating |
an oath of secrecy taken before the |
grand jury. The real question was
whether the oath of secrecy was au-
thorized or required by law. The oath
was prescribed by a single judge of
the Circuit Court and not by a gem
eral rule. The Organic Act provided7
that regulations for the grand jury
should be prescribed by the Supreme
Court of the Territory. In rule IA of
i
es before the grand jury was prescrib-
ed No rule of secrecy was provided.
The opinion OF the court that
a judge of the Circuit Court was with
out authority to prescribe that oath.
In the absence of any order or rule,
according to law, there could be no
contempt of court in violating an oath
of secrecy. The writ must be allowed
and the petitioner discharged from
custody.
Amin was called forward and in
formed that he was free, when, turn
ing his back upon his host of the pre-
vious night, he walked away with his
counsel.
Judge De Bolt stated, after the Su-
preme Court had decided the Amin
case. that when he was directing a |
grand jury he inserted a secrecy
clause in the oath for witnesses be-
hot l