Case Name: Martin POPPER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-07-05
Citations: 306 F.2d 290
Docket Number: No. 16445
Parties: Martin POPPER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 306
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
Martin POPPER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16445.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 1, 1962.
Decided July 5, 1962.
Mr. Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for appellant. Mr. David Rein, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.
Mr. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs, David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Nathan J. Paul-son and William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Charles T. Duncan, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., and John R. Schmertz, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for ap-pellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress, under 2 U.S.C. § 192, for refusal to answer certain questions of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. A pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment filed on behalf of appellant alleged inter alia that "the' indictment fails to set forth the question under inquiry This motion was denied and, at a subsequent trial before a jury, appellant was found guilty of the crime charged against him. From the judgment ana sentence entered against him by the District Court in conformity with the jury's verdict, Popper appeals to this court, urging again, among other grounds, the insufficiency of the indictment.
Bound as we are by the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Russell v. United States and related cases, 369 U.S. 749, 779, 781, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 we reverse the judgment of the District Court.
We do not pass on any other points raised by appellant.
Reversed.