Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/384-u-s-702-606652206
Timestamp: 2019-11-13 20:38:03
Document Index: 252520852

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 102', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192']

384 U.S. 702 (1966), 594, Gojack v. United States - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606652206
Citation: 384 U.S. 702, 86 S.Ct. 1689, 16 L.Ed.2d 870
Party Name: Gojack v. United States
86 S.Ct. 1689, 16 L.Ed.2d 870
In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1955, petitioner refused to answer certain questions concerning his affiliation with the Communist Party, the affiliation of others, and his connection with a "Peace Crusade." He did not invoke the Fifth Amendment, but challenged the jurisdiction of the Committee and the Subcommittee, the authorization of each and the constitutionality of the inquiry. He was indicted and convicted for contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. § 192 as a result of his refusals to answer. In Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, this Court reversed, holding the indictment defective because it did not allege the "subject under inquiry." Petitioner was re-indicted, the indictment reciting that "the subject of these hearings was Communist party activities within the field of labor." Petitioner was again convicted and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
1. "A specific, properly authorized subject of inquiry is an essential element of the offense under § 192," and must be properly pleaded and proved. Pp. 706-712.
2. In this case, the House Committee never authorized the hearings on "Communist party activities within the field of labor" which is alleged to be the subject of inquiry. Pp. 706-712.
(a) The House Committee's own Rule I requires that a "major investigation" be specifically approved by the Committee. This is concededly a "major investigation." The record shows that it was never authorized or approved by the Committee. "When a committee rule relates to a matter of such importance, it must be strictly observed." Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109. Pp. 706-709.
proof of a clear delegation to the subcommittee of authority to conduct an inquiry into a designated subject, the subcommittee was without authority which can be vindicated by criminal sanctions under § 192. . . .
The legislative history of § 192 makes plain that a clear chain of authority from the House to the questioning body is an essential element of the offense. If the contempt occurs before a subcommittee, the line of authority from the House to the Committee and then to the subcommittee must plainly and explicitly appear, and it must appear in terms of a delegation with respect to a particular, specific subject matter.
This case is a sequel to this Court's decision in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, and companion cases. One of those cases related to the same person who is petitioner here, and to the same events.
to the questions which he declined to answer.1 He did not and does not invoke the Fifth Amendment.
He was indicted for contempt of Congress under Rev.Stat. § 102, as amended, 52 Stat. 942, 2 U.S.C. § 192 (1964 ed.)2 (hereafter, § 192) as a result of his refusals to answer. He was convicted. [86 S.Ct. 1692] In Russell v. United States, supra, this Court reversed, holding that the indictment was defective because it did not allege the "subject under inquiry." The Court noted that, under § 192, specification of the subject of the inquiry is fundamental to a charge of violating its provisions. Absent an allegation of the subject matter of the inquiry, this Court held, there is no way in which it can be determined whether the factual recitals of the indictment charged a crime under § 192 -- that is, a refusal to answer questions
"pertinent to the inquiry," and within the legislative competence of Congress.3
Petitioner here urges that we reconsider this Court's decision in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109. In Barenblatt, this Court upheld the authority of the
Admittedly, there is no direct evidence that the Committee approved the investigation of Communist [86 S.Ct. 1693] activities in the field of labor of which the hearings at which petitioner was called to testify were a part.
A footnote to this statement concedes that "We do not dispute that this investigation was a `major' one and that approval by a majority of the Committee was therefore required."
The Government's only plea in avoidance of this obvious deficiency is that we should "infer" Committee approval of the inquiry at which petitioner was required to respond to questions, because it was part of the Committee's alleged "continuing investigation" of Communist activities in the labor field.4 But this is clearly impermissible.
We are not here dealing with the justification for an investigation by a committee of the Congress as a matter of congressional administration. That is a legislative matter. We are here concerned with a criminal proceeding. It is clear as a matter of law that the usual standards of the criminal law must be observed, including proper allegation and proof of all the essential elements of the offense.5 Moreover, the Congress, in enacting § 192, specifically indicated that it relied upon the courts to apply the exacting standards of criminal jurisprudence to charges of contempt of Congress in order to assure that the congressional investigative power, when enforced by penal sanctions, would not be abused.6
It can hardly be disputed that a specific, properly...
Hurt v. Liberty Township, 022217 OHCOC, 2016-00856-PQ