Source: https://openjurist.org/340/us/367
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:07:34+00:00

Document:
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1951.
The next day, counsel for petitioner informed the court that he had read the transcript of the prior day's proceedings and that, upon his advice, petitioner would answer the questions to purge herself of contempt.3 However, upon reappearing before the grand jury, petitioner again refused to answer the question. The following day she was again brought into court. Called before the district judge immediately after he had heard oral argument concerning the privilege against self-incrimination in another case, petitioner repeated her refusal to answer the question, asserting this time the privilege against self-incrimination.4 After ruling that her refusal was not privileged, the district judge imposed a sentence of four months for contempt. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, 1950, 179 F.2d 559, and we granted certiorari, 1950, 339 U.S. 956, 70 S.Ct. 978.
If petitioner desired the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination, she was required to claim it. United States v. Monia, 1943, 317 U.S. 424, 427, 63 S.Ct. 409, 410, 87 L.Ed. 376. The privilege 'is deemed waived unless invoked.' United States v. Murdock, 1931, 284 U.S. 141, 148, 52 S.Ct. 63, 64, 76 L.Ed. 210.5 Furthermore, the decisions of this Court are explicit in holding that the privilege against self-incrimination 'is solely for the benefit of the witness,'6 and 'is purely a personal privilege of the witness.'7 Petitioner expressly placed her original declination to answer on an untenable ground, since a refusal to answer cannot be justified by a desire to protect others from punishment,8 much less to protect another from interrogation by a grand jury. Petitioner's claim of the privilege against self-incrimination was pure afterthought. Although the claim was made at the time of her second refusal to answer in the presence of the court, it came only after she had voluntarily testified to her status as an officer of the Communist Party of Denver. To uphold a claim of privilege in this case would open the way to distortion of facts by permitting a witness to select any stopping place in the testimony.
The privilege against self-incrimination, even if claimed at the time the question as to the name of the person to whom petitioner turned over the Party records was asked, would not justify her refusal to answer. As a preliminary matter, we note that petitioner had no privilege with respect to the books of the Party, whether it be a corporation9 or an unincorporated association.10 Books and records kept 'in a representative rather than in a personal capacity cannot be the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate (their keeper) personally.' United States v. White, 1944, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251, 88 L.Ed. 1542.11 Since petitioner's claim of privilege cannot be asserted in relation to the books and records sought by the grand jury, the only claim for reversal of her conviction rests on the ground that mere disclosure of the name of the recipient of the books tends to incriminate.
Some people are hostile to the Fifth Amendment's provision unequivocally commanding that no United States official shall compel a person to be a witness against himself. They consider the provisions as an outmoded relic of past fears generated by ancient inquisitorial practices that could not possibly happen here. For this reason the provilege to be silent is sometimes accepted as being more or less of a constitutional nuisance which the courts should abate whenever and however possible. Such an end could be achieved by two obvious judicial techniques: (1) narrow construction of the scope of the privilege; (2) broad construction of the doctrine of 'waiver.' Any attempt to use the first of these methods, however, runs afoul of approximately 150 years of precedent. See Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223, and cases there cited. This Court has almost always construed the Amendment broadly1 on the view that compelling a person to convict himself of crime is 'contrary to the principles of a free government' and 'abhorrent to the instincts of an American'; that while such a coercive practice 'may suit the purposes of despotic power * * * it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.' Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 632, 6 S.Ct. 524, 533, 29 L.Ed. 746; but cf. United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, 76 L.Ed. 210.
The doctrine of waiver seems to be a more palatable but equally effective device for whittling away the protection afforded by the privilege, although I think today's application of that doctrine cannot be supported by our past decisions. Of course, it has never been doubted that a constitutional right could be intentionally relinquished and that such an intention might be found from a 'course of conduct.' Shepard v. Barron, 194 U.S. 553, 568, 24 S.Ct. 737, 742, 48 L.Ed. 1115. But we have said that intention to waive the privilege against self-incrimination is not 'lightly to be inferred' and that vague and uncertain evidence will not support a finding of waiver. Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137, 150, 69 S.Ct. 1000, 1007, 93 L.Ed. 1264, relying on Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461, and cases there cited. In the case of this petitioner, there is no evidence that she intended to give up her privilege of silence concerning the persons in possession of the Communist Party records. To the contrary, the record—as set out in the Court's opinion—shows she intended to avoid answering the question on whatever ground might be available and asserted the privilege against self-incrimination at the first moment she became aware of its existence.2 This fact and the cases which make it crucial are ignored in the decision today.
'Mrs. Rogers: Well, as I said before, I'm a very honest person and I'm not acquainted with the tricks of legal procedure, but I understand from the reading of these cases this morning that I am—and I do have a right to refuse to answer these questions, on the basis that they would tend to incriminate me, and you read it yourself, that I have a right to decide that.
'The Court: All right. If you will make no changes, it is the judgment and sentence of the court you be confined to the custody of the Attorney General for four months. Call the next case.' Transcript of Record, pp. 76—78 (September 23, 1948).
Citing U.S. ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 1927, 273 U.S. 103, 113, 47 S.Ct. 302, 306, 71 L.Ed. 560. See Smith v. United States, 1949, 337 U.S. 137, 147, 69 S.Ct. 1000, 1005, 93 L.Ed. 1264; Corwin, The Supreme Court's Construction of the Self-Incrimination Clause, 29 Michigan L.Rev. 1, 198—199 (1930).
Brown v. Walker, 1896, 161 U.S. 591, 609, 16 S.Ct. 644, 651, 40 L.Ed. 819; Hale v. Henkel, 1906, 201 U.S. 43, 69—70, 26 S.Ct. 370, 377, 50 L.Ed. 652.
Today's opinion seeks to derive a looser test from certain negative language in the subsequent case of McCarthy v. Arndstein, 262 U.S. 355, 359, 43 S.Ct. 562, 563, 67 L.Ed. 1023, where it was said that if 'the previous disclosure by an ordinary witness is not an actual admission of guilt or incriminating facts, he is not deprived of the privilege of stopping short * * *.' In that very case, however, the Court quoted with approval the minimum rule it had previously announced. 262 U.S. at page 358, 43 S.Ct. at page 563, 67 L.Ed. 1023. Moreover, in stating the reason why Arndstein had not waived his privilege, the Court said: 'And since we find that none of the answers which had been voluntarily given by Arndstein, either by way of denials or partial disclosures, amounted to an admission or showing of guilt, we are of opinion that he was entitled to decline to answer further questions when so to do might tend to incriminate him.' 262 U.S. at pages 359 360, 43 S.Ct. at pages 563—564, 67 L.Ed. 1023.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.