Source: https://openjurist.org/349/us/155
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:39:47+00:00

Document:
Pursuant to subpoena, petitioner appeared on August 10, 1949, before a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. Petitioner was then a member and field representative of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. Also subpoenaed to appear on that day were Thomas J. Fitzpatrick and Frank Panzino, two officers of the same union. At the outset of the hearings, counsel for the committee announced that the purpose of the investigation was to inquire into 'the question of Communist affiliation or association of certain members' of the union and 'the advisability of tightening present security requirements in industrial plants working on certain Government contracts.'4 All three witnesses were asked questions concerning alleged membership in the Communist Party. All three declined to answer.
On November 20, 1950, all three witnesses were indicted under § 192 for their refusals to answer.9 The three cases were tried before different judges, each sitting without a jury. Fitzpatrick and Panzino were acquitted. In Fitzpatrick's case, it was held that his references to 'the first and fifth amendments' and 'the first amendment to the Constitution, supplemented by the fifth amendment' constituted an adequate means of invoking the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.10 Similarly, in Panzino's case, it was held that his reference to 'the fifth amendment' was sufficient to plead the privilege.11 In petitioner's case, however, the District Court held that a witness may not incorporate the position of another witness and rejected petitioner's defense based on the Self-Incrimination Clause.12 Petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a term of six months in jail and a fine of $500.
The privilege against self-incrimination is a right that was hardearned by our forefathers. The reasons for its inclusion in the Constitution—and the necessities for its preservation—are to be found in the lessons of history.26 As early as 1650, remembrance of the horror of Star Chamber procedings a decade before had firmly established the privilege in the common law of England. Transplanted to this country as part of our legal heritage, it soon made its way into various state constitutions and ultimately in 1791 into the federal Bill of Rights. The privilege, this Court has stated, 'was generally regarded then, as now, as a privilege of great value, a proection to the innocent though a shelter to the guilty, and a safeguard against heedless, unfounded, or tyrannical prosecutions.'27 Coequally with our other constitutional guarantees, the Self-Incrimination Clause 'must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure.'28 Such liberal construction is particularly warranted in a prosecution of a witness for a refusal to answer, since the respect normally accorded the privilege is then buttressed by the presumption of innocence accorded a defendant in a criminal trial. To apply the privilege narrowly or begrudgingly to treat it as an historical relic, at most merely to be tolerated is to ignore its development and purpose.
In the instant case petitioner was convicted for refusing to answer the committee's question as to his alleged membership in the Communist Party. Clearly an answer to the question might have tended to incriminate him.29 As a consequence, petitioner was entitled to claim the privilege. The principal issue here is whether or not he did.
It is agreed by all that a claim of the privilege does not require any special combination of words.30 Plainly a witness need not have the skill of a lawyer to invoke the protection of the Self-Incrimination Clause. If an objection to a question is made in any language that a committee may reasonably be expected to understand as an attempt to invoke the privilege, it must be respected both by the committee and by a court in a prosecution under § 192.
Here petitioner, by adopting the grounds relied upon by Fitzpatrick, based his refusal to answer on 'the first and fifth Amendments' and 'the first amendment to the Constitution, supplemented by the fifth amendment.' The Government concedes—as we think it must—that a witness may invoke the privilege by stating 'I refuse to testify on the ground of the Fifth Amendment.' Surely, in popular parlance and even in legal literature, the term 'Fifth Amendment' in the context of our time is commonly regarded as being synonymous with the privilege against self-incrimination. The Government argues, however, that the references to the Fifth Amendment in the instant case were inadequate to invoke the privilege because Fitzpatrick's statements are more reasonably understood as invoking rights under the First Amendment. We find the Government's argument untenable. The mere fact that Fitzpatrick and petitioner also relied on the First Amendment does not preclude their reliance on the Fifth Amendment as well.31 If a witness urges two constitutional objections to a committee's line of questioning, he is not bound at his peril to choose between them. By pressing both objections, he does not lose a privilege which would have been valid if he had only relied on one.
The Government, moreover, apparently concedes that petitioner intended to invoke the privilege. In its brief the Government points out 'the probability that petitioner's ambiguous references to the Fifth Amendment * * * were phrased deliberately in such vague terms so as to enable petitioner * * * to obtain the benefit of the privilege without incurring the popular opprobrium which often attaches to its exercise.'32 But the fact that a witness expresses his intention in vague terms is immaterial so long as the claim is sufficiently definite to apprise the committee of his intention. As everyone agrees, no ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege. In the instant case, Quinn's references to the Fifth Amendment were clearly sufficient to put the committee on notice of an apparent claim of the privilege. It then became incumbent on the committee either to accept the claim or to ask petitioner whether he was in fact invoking the privilege. Particularly is this so if it is true, as the Government contends, that petitioner feared the stigma that might result from a forthright claim of his constitutional right to refuse to testify. It is precisely at such times—when the privilege is under attack by those who wrongly conceive of it as merely a shield for the guilty—that governmental bodies must be most scrupulous in protecting its exercise.
Section 192, like the ordinary federal criminal statute, requires a criminal intent—in this instance, a deliberate, intentional refusal to answer.33 This element of the offense, like any other, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner contends that such proof was not, and cannot be, made in this case.
This ambiguity in the committee's position is apparent from the transcript of the hearing.35 Immediately after petitioner stated that he was adopting Fitzpatrick's objection, the committee chairman asked petitioner: '* * * will you now answer the question whether you are now or ever have been a member of the Communist Party, or do you decline to answer?' In response to this, petitioner stated for the first time that he would not answer. He said: 'I decline to discuss with the committee questions of that nature.' Committee counsel thereupon stated that further questioning 'relating to those matters' was 'not necessary' and proceeded upon a new line of inquiry. There is nothing in this colloquy from which petitioner could have determined with a reasonable degree of certainty that the committee demanded his answer despie his objection. Rather, the colloquy is wholly consistent with the hypothesis that the committee had in fact acquiesced in his objection.
The Court in these two cases refuses to punish petitioners, witnesses before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, for refusal to answer certain pertinent questions. Such refusal is declared to be a misdemeanor by 2 U.S.C. § 192, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192.
The separate opinions are based on the conclusion that the petitioners each properly claimed for himself the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The Court holds that questions concerning association with known communists or membership in the Party asked witnesses holding prominent positions in a local union, under investigation for communist infiltration directed at national security, might reasonably be feared as incriminatory by the witnesses.1 For these cases I make that assumption, too. In both the cases, the Court directs remand to the trial court with directions to acquit. This disposition of the charges excludes any factual issues for decision by the trial court as to whether the witnesses did or did not claim their privilege. It decides that, as a matter of law, the petitioners claimed their privilege by the words used by them in answer to the questions propounded by the Committee. Since the indictments contained numerous counts covering many questions asked and the evidence showed varying reasons for not answering, the conclusion that privilege was claimed blankets all questions. Since the sentences were less than the maximum penalty for one count, if the Court's determination is wrong as to any one question, its present judgments are wrong.2 Normally the issue as to whether a claim of privilege was made would be a matter of fact for the trial court if reasonable men might reach either conclusion. See the discussion below in the opinion of Judge Prettyman in Quinn v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 203 F.2d 20, 24, and of Judge Bazelon at pages 26 and 38. None of the judges of the Court of Appeals suggested approval of such action as this Court now takes in directing acquittal. See also Emspak v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 378, 203 F.2d 54, dissent 60. This Court at least should have followed that course here.
These sweeping decisions affect the conduct of all congressional inquiries and all courts, for from the opinions there emerges a legally enforceable rule for handling hearings or prosecutions when questions raise for the witness a problem of self-incrimination. The Court, Quinn opinion, 75 S.Ct. 674, requires the interrogator, once the witness' claim though 'vague * * * is sufficiently definite to apprise the committee of his intention' to claim his privilege, 'either to accept the claim or to ask petitioner whether he was in fact invoking the privilege.' Although this phrasing, particularly the last clause, carries for me probabilities of uncertainties in future applications that former decisions avoided,3 it is accepted for this case as the governing rule. My conclusion is that neither petitioner here apprised the Committee that he was claiming his privilege. As shown by the cases just cited, the privilege is personal to the witness. The reach of questions into matters that might lead to his prosecution for crime may be known only to him. Therefore the witness has the burden of doing something more than suggesting a question might incriminate him. At least, in the words of the Court, he must 'apprise the committee of his intention' to claim his privilege.
The purpose of having witnesses is to furnish to proper interrogators, subject to objections for materiality or the use of coercion, the actual facts they seek. Legislation can best be drafted and cases tried most fairly only when all pertinent facts are made available to those charged with legislation or maintenance of the peace. However, the Congress in the first series of Amendments to the Constitution wrote an exception to this duty in the instance where an answer would compel a person to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. In that situation, on a valid claim of privilege against self-incrimination, the witness may be excused from answering.4 That exception should neither be shriveled nor bloated. It is designed to excuse the guilty and the innocent alike from testifying when prosecution may reasonably be feared from compelled disclosures. The importance of preserving the right to require evidence, except when a witness definitely apprises the interrogating body of a valid claim of privilege, leads us to dissent.
During an active period of national rearmament this Committee was investigating subversive and security situations in the sensitive electronic industry with a view to possible legislation.5 The recalcitrant witnesses held important positions in the field. Mr. Quinn was a field organizer of the International Union of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers. Mr. Emspak was its General Secretary. The third witness, who is not a petitioner but whose testimony is hereafter referred to, was Mr. Fitzpatrick, chief steward of the Westinghouse Corporation local. There is nothing to indicate that the witnesses had mentalities of a quality less than one would expect from experienced officials holding such responsible positions.
While the trial and appellate courts each had only a printed record of the testimony, one group, the subcommittees themselves, had the best opportunity to appraise disinterestedly the fact of whether Messrs. Quinn and Emspak claimed the privilege. The questions and answers were both asked by the counsel and answered by the witnesses in the hearing of the Committee. In citations of Quinn and Emspak to the House for contempt, the Committee certified that the refusal of each 'to answer the aforesaid questions deprived your committee of necessary and pertinent testimony * * *.'7 It can hardly be contended that the Committee did not know a claim of privilege against answering incriminating questions would have excused the witnesses from answering.
In view of the basis of the Court's decision made on its own examination and appraisal of the record, we must necessarily set out for discussion much of the testimony to determine whether the witnesses claimed the privilege.8 The pertinent evidence follows.
'Mr. Emspak. No; I don't, Mr. Chairman. As a basic proposition—and it has worked over the years and over the last few months as far as this committee is concerned—a slick job— 'Mr. Moulder. Do you know them or not?
From these vague statements of Messrs. Quinn and Emspak the Court draws the conclusion that they were sufficient to apprise the Committee of the witnesses' intention to claim the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court finds support for its theory of 'intention' to claim privilege from a statement in the Government's brief in the Quinn case set out below.9 With all respect, I fail to see any concession by the Government of evidence that should apprise the Committee of a claim of privilege against self-incrimination. The first sentence of the quotation from the brief emphatically denies the Court's assumption.
The opinion of the trial court, printed only in the record, pp. 224—227, holds 'The defendant failed to assert (the privilege).' Six of the nine members of the Court of Appeals held that Emspak had not claimed. Three did not reach that issue.
I concur with the Court in its assertions of the value of the self-incrimination clause—that it may be used as a shield by guilty and innocent alike—and that it should be construed liberally as it has been to cover more than the literal reading of the phrase 'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' would suggest.11 This sympathetic attitude toward the clause should not lead us to intrude our ideas of propriety into the conduct of congressional hearings. The rule laid down by the Court today merely adds another means for interference and delay in investigations and trials, without adding to the protecton of the constitutional right of freedom from self-incrimination. This is contrary to the policy of Congress to get information from witnesses even with a claim of immunity, through the Compulsory Testimony Act of August 20, 1954, 68 Stat. 745, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3486 and note preceding § 3481.
While the Court held in Sinclair that deliberate refusal was all that was required to consummate the offense under 2 U.S.C. § 192, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, at the same time we were at pains to point out 'There was no misapprehension' on the part of the witness 'as to what was called for.' 279 U.S. at page 299, 49 S.Ct. at page 274. It is because the refusal must be intentional, that the witness must know that his excuses for not answering have not been accepted by the Committee. When a witness interposes objections to testifying which are not frivolous, it is difficult to say he intentionally refused to answer when the interrogation continues without pause to some other question. I agree that the Committee cannot, in fairness to the witness, lull him into thinking that his refusal to answer is acceptable and then cite him for contempt. Refusal under such circumstances would not be deliberate. However, specific direction to answer is not necessary; only intentional refusal is.
The Court suggests, note 36, Quinn case, 75 S.Ct. 676, that congressional committees follow the practice of other legislative bodies and determine first the validity of the witness' reason for failure to answer and then direct him to answer. The defect in that analogy is that the Court seems to assume in its note a formal vote and a specific direction to answer. I think such a specific direction is inconsistent with its admission that no ritualistic formula is required. 75 S.Ct. 677. No provision of the statute, nor of any rule of Congress is cited by the Court to support a requirement of specific direction. The Court of Appeals held direction to answer unnecessary so long as the witness knew that the Committee had not acceded to his refusal.14 As I stated above, in my view it is sufficient if the witness knows his excuses are not acceptable to the Committee and that he is required to answer. Whether or not the witnesses knew this in these two cases is the question on this second point.
United States v. Quinn, unreported, Criminal No. 1744—50 (D.D.C.).
Id., 273 U.S. at pages 173—174, 47 S.Ct. at page 328; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190, 26 L.Ed. 377.
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 192—193, 26 L.Ed. 377.
See Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today, 2—7.
Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 91, 29 S.Ct. 14, 16, 53 L.Ed. 97. See also Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 631—632, 6 S.Ct. 524, 532—533, 29 L.Ed. 746.
As to the close relationship between the First Amendment and the privilege against self-incrimination, see Griswold, supra, note 26, at 8—9.
On similar grounds, an acquittal was directed in United States v. Browder, unreported, Criminal No. 1784—50 (D.D.C.).
Recalcitrant witnesses before investigating committees of the British House of Commons have traditionally been apprised of the disposition of their objections and given subsequent opportunity to respond before being subjected to the contempt power of the legislature. The practice has been as follows: The committee reports the failure to answer to the House. The witness is questioned about the cause of the refusal to answer before the Bar of the House. The House then votes on the validity of the objection. If the claim is rejected, the witness is specifically directed to answer. Only after a subsequent refusal is punishment imposed. See 88 Journals of the House of Commons 212, 218 (Case of Elizabeth Robinson before Select Committee on Liverpool Bribery, 1833); 90 Journals of the House of Commons 501, 504, and 29 Hans.Deb., 3d Ser. 1249, 1279—1288 (Case of William Prentice before Select Committee on Great Yarmouth Bribery, 1835); 90 Journals of the House of Commons 564, 571, 575 (Case of Lieutenant Colonel Fairman before Select Committee on the Orange Lodges, 1835); 152 Journals of the House of Commons 661, 365 (Case of John Kirkwood before Select Committee on Money Lending, 1897).
For Canadian practice, see the case of W. T. R. Preston before the Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, and the House of Commons. 41 Journals of the House of Commons, Canada, 298, 316, 323; 41 id., Appendix No. 2, 324—327; 41 id., Appendix No. 3, 250—251; 76 Debates, House of Commons, Canada, Session 1906, Vol. III, 4451 4535.
See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118: 'It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified * * * and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken." See also Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Burr, 25 Fed.Cas. pages 38, 40, No. 14,692e: 'When a question is propounded, it belongs to the court to consider and to decide whether any direct answer to it can implicate the witness.' The cases, both federal and state, are collected in Wigmore, Evidence, § 2271. See, e.g., Carlson v. United States, 1 Cir., 209 F.2d 209, 214, and Gendron v. Burnham, 146 Me. 387, 405—406, 82 A.2d 773, 784—785, 38 A.L.R.2d 210.
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 230—231, 5 L.Ed. 242.
See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess. 771—772 (1869); id., 42d Cong., 3d Sess. 952 (1873); 4 Cong.Rec. 1705 et seq. (1876) (citation of Hallet Kilbourn, involved in Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, note 22); 26 Cong.Rec. 6143 et seq. (1894) (citation of Elverton R. Chapman, involved in In re Chapman, supra, note 20); 65 Cong.Rec. 4785 et seq. (1924) (citation of Harry F. Sinclair involved in Sinclair v. United States, supra, note 33); 69 Cong.Rec. 2439, 5286, 5353, 7239 (1928); 78 Cong.Rec. 1902, 1911—1914 (1934); 86 Cong.Rec. 3856 (1940); 90 Cong.Rec. 8163 (1944); 97 Cong.Rec. 499 et seq. (1951).
See, e.g., the contempt citation of George Powers at 86 Cong.Rec. 3856—3857. See also the citation of James H. Dolsen, id., at 3694—3695.
'Moreover, we feel bound to point out the probability that petitioner's ambiguous references to the Fifth Amendment (and those of the petitioner Emspak in No. 9 (75 S.Ct. 687)), which he now contends constituted a claim of privilege, were phrased deliberately in such vague terms so as to enable petitioner (and Emspak) to obtain the benefit of the privilege without incurring the popular opprobrium which often attaches to its exercise. This suggestion is not based merely upon the obvious fact that it would have been extremely easy for petitioner to have informed the Committee that answers to its questions might incriminate or endanger him. It is also based upon facts of record, and matters appropriate for judicial notice, which reveal that petitioner (and Fitzpatrick and Emspak) had compelling and immediate reasons to refrain from making any public statements from which it might be inferred, properly or not, that they were Communists or Communist sympathizers.' Govt. br., 33—34.

References: § 192
 § 192
 § 192
 § 192
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3486
 § 3481
 § 192
 § 192
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2271
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.