What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

Opinion:
McPHAUL v. UNITED STATES.
No. 33.
Argued October 13, 1960.
Decided November 14, 1960.
Ernest Goodman argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Geo. W. Crockett, Jr. was with him on the petition.
Daniel M. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Kevin T. Maroney, George B. Searls and Lee B. Anderson.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here review petitioner’s conviction under 2 U. S. C. § 192 for willful failure to comply with a subpoena of the House of Representatives commanding him to produce certain records of the Civil Rights Congress before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The principal question presented is whether the evidence justified the trial court’s rulings that the records called for by the subpoena were in existence, subject to petitioner’s control, and pertinent to the Committee’s inquiry.
The relevant evidence was as follows. Having knowledge that the Civil Rights Congress had been declared a subversive organization by the Attorney General — indeed, having itself earlier found that organization to be a subversive one — and having reason to believe that petitioner was its Executive Secretary, the House Committee on Un-American Activities caused a subpoena of the House of Representatives to be issued and served upon petitioner commanding him to appear before its Committee on Un-American Activities, or a subcommittee thereof, at a stated time and place in Detroit, Michigan, on February 26, 1952, and there to produce “all records, correspondence and memoranda pertaining to the organization of, the affiliation with other organizations and all monies received or expended by the Civil Rights Congress . . . [and] then and there to testify touching matters of inquiry committed to said Committee . . .
Upon the opening of the hearings before the Subcommittee at Detroit on February 26, 1952, the chairman made a public statement, saying, among other things, that earlier Committee hearings had “disclosed a concentration of Communist effort in certain defense areas of the country,” consisting in part of keeping “the national organization of the Communist Party and the international Communist movement fully advised of industrial potentialities” in such areas, and that “[tjhere is no area of greater importance to the Nation as a whole, both in time of peace and in time of war, than the general area of Detroit,” and he concluded with the statement that: “The purpose of this investigation is to determine first, whether there has been Communist activity in this vital defense area, and if so, the nature, extent, character and objects thereof.”
Accompanied by counsel, petitioner appeared before the Subcommittee at the time and place commanded by the subpoena, and the following colloquy occurred:
“Mr. Wood [the chairman]: Mr. McPhaul, the committee has heretofore served upon you a subpoena duces tecum, to produce certain records and documents. Are you prepared to respond to that subpoena?
“Mr. Wood: . . . Will you answer my question, Mr. McPhaul. Are you prepared to produce the documents and papers that have been called upon for you to produce under the subpoena?
“Mr. McPhaul: Mr. Wood, I refuse to answer this or any question which deals with the possession or custody of the books and records called for in the subpoena. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
“Mr. Tavbnner [Committee counsel]: I would like to ask the witness if he has any other reason for refusing to produce the documents called for in the subpoena?
“Mr. Wood : In order to complete the record, Mr. McPhaul is it in response to this subpoena that has just been read that you now. decline, for the reason you have stated, to produce the documents and books and records therein called for?
“Mr. McPhaul: I have stated the reasons, for the record.
“Mr. Wood : Is it in response to this subpoena that you refuse to answer?
“Mr. McPhaul: That is my answer that I have just given.
“Mr. Wood : To this subpoena?
“Mr. McPhaul: To that subpoena; yes.”
Petitioner was then sworn, and, after submitting a prepared statement and answering a few preliminary questions, the following occurred:
“Mr. Tavenner: The question is as to whether or not you are refusing to produce the records directed to be produced under the subpoena?
“Mr. McPhaul: My answer to that is, I refuse to answer this or any questions which deal with possession or custody of the books and records called for in this subpoena. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.
“Mr. Tavenner: My question to you was not answered by that statement, in my judgment. My question was whether or not you are refusing to produce the records which you were directed to produce under this subpoena?
“Mr. McPhaul: I have answered it in this statement.
■
“Mr. Tavenner: No sir. You have stated that you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to them. I have not asked you a question that pertains to them. I have asked you to produce the records. Now, will you produce them?
“Mr. McPhaul: I will not.”
Following receipt of the Subcommittee's report of these occurrences, the House certified the matter to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan for initiation of contempt proceedings against petitioner, and he was indicted on July 29, 1954. After denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and the case was put to trial before a jury. The Government offered and there was received in evidence those portions of the transcript of the Detroit hearings which we have mentioned, various House documents authorizing the initiation of this proceeding, and a letter on the letterhead of the Civil Rights Congress, dated February 16,1952, over petitioner’s name, and what purported to be his signature, as Executive Secretary.
Petitioner offered no evidence, but moved for a directed verdict of acquittal substantially on the grounds asserted in his motion to dismiss the indictment (see note 3) and on the further grounds that the Government had failed to adduce any evidence sufficient to show that the records called for by the subpoena were in existence and in petitioner’s possession or control at the time he was served with the subpoena or that they were pertinent to the Subcommittee’s inquiry. The motion was denied, and thereupon petitioner requested the court to charge the jury, in substance, that unless they found from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the records called for by the subpoena were in existence and in petitioner’s custody or control at the time the subpoena was served upon him, they should find him not guilty. The court refused that request and, instead,- charged the jury not to consider “whether the records and documents designated in the subpoena were actually in existence or under the possession or control of the defendant, because if the defendant had legitimate reasons for failing to produce the said records, he should have stated his reasons for non-compliance with the subpoena when he appeared before the said subcommittee.”
The jury found petitioner guilty, and he was fined the sum of $500 and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 272 F, 2d 627, and we granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 917.
Petitioner’s principal contentions here are that there was no evidence showing that the records called for by the subpoena were in existence or, if it may be said that there was, that those records were in petitioner’s possession or subject to his control, and the trial court therefore should have sustained his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal or, at the minimum, should have submitted those matters to the jury for resolution.
It is of course true that “[a] court will not imprison a witness for failure to produce documents which he does not have, unless he is responsible for their unavailability, cf. Jurney v. MacCracken, [294 U. S. 125], or is impeding justice by not explaining what happened to them, United States v. Goldstein, 105 F. 2d 150 (1939),” United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 330-331. But, so far as the record shows, petitioner has never claimed— either before the Subcommittee, the District Court, or the Court of Appeals, and he does not claim here — that the records called for by the subpoena did not exist or that they were not in his possession or subject to his control. Rather, his claim, first raised at his contempt trial more than two years after his appearance before the Subcommittee, is that the Government failed to show that he could have produced the records before the Subcommittee, notwithstanding he has never claimed he could not produce them.
We think the Court’s decision in United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, is highly relevant to these questions. For it is as true here as it was there, that “if [petitioner] had legitimate reasons for failing to produce the records of the association, a decent respect for the House of Representatives, by whose authority the subpoenas issued, would have required that [he] state [his] reasons for noncompliance upon the return of the writ.” Id., at 332. Such a statement would have given the Subcommittee an opportunity to avoid the blocking of its inquiry by taking other appropriate steps to obtain the records. “To deny the Committee the opportunity to consider the objection or remedy it is in itself a contempt of its authority and an obstruction of its processes. See Benan v. Krieger, 289 U. S. 459, 464-465 (1933).” His failure to make any such statement was “a patent evasion of the duty of one summoned to produce papers before a congressional committee [, and] cannot be condoned.” Id., at 333.
The Government’s proof at the trial thus established a prima facie case of willful failure to comply with the subpoena. The evidence of the Subcommittee’s reasonable basis for believing that the petitioner could produce the records in question, coupled with the evidence of his failure even to suggest to the Subcommittee his inability to produce those records, clearly supported an inference that he could have produced them. The burden then shifted to the petitioner to present some evidence to explain or justify his refusal. Morrison v. California, 291 U. S. 82, 88-89. But he elected not to present any evidence. In these circumstances, there was no factual issue, respecting the existence of the records or his ability to produce them, for resolution by the jury.
The Fifth Amendment did not excuse petitioner from producing the records of the Civil Rights Congress, for it is well settled that “[b]ooks 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, 322 U. S. 694, 699 (1944).” Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 372. And see Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118, 122-123. Similarly, there is no merit in petitioner’s argument that he could not have advised the Subcommittee that he was unable to produce the records without thereby inviting other questions respecting the records and thus risking waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination. See Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118. Nor does the rule of Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159, excuse one subpoenaed to produce records in a representative capacity, United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, from asserting inability to produce the records if, at a later contempt trial for failure to produce the records, he expects to put the Government to proof on that matter.
Inasmuch as petitioner neither advised the Subcommittee that he was unable to produce the records nor attempted to introduce any evidence at his contempt trial of his inability to produce them, we hold that the trial court was justified in concluding and in charging the jury that the records called for by the subpoena were in existence and under petitioner’s control at the time the subpoena was served upon him.
Petitioner next contends that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the records called for by the subpoena were pertinent to the inquiry. In the first place, petitioner made no objection to the subpoena before the Subcommittee on the ground of pertinency, see Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 123, but we need not rest decision on that score, for here “pertinency” was clearly shown. The stated purposes of the hearing were to determine “whether there has been Communist activity in this vital defense area [Detroit], and if so, the nature, extent, character and objects thereof.” Earlier Subcommittee hearings had “disclosed a concentration of Communist effort in certain defense areas of the country,” consisting in part of keeping “the national organization of the Communist Party and the international Communist movement fully advised of industrial potentialities” in such areas, and the Subcommittee also had reason to believe that the Civil Rights Congress was being used for subversive purposes. The subpoena called for “all records, correspondence and memoranda” of the Civil Rights Congress relating to three specified subjects: (1) The “organization of” the group, (2) its “affiliation with other organizations,” and (3) “all monies received or expended by [it].” It would seem clear enough that the auspices under which the Civil Rights Congress was organized, the identity and extent of its affiliations, the source of its funds and to whom distributed would be prime considerations in determining whether the organization was being used by the Communists in the Detroit area. If the Civil Rights Congress was affiliated with known Communist organizations, or if its funds were received from such organizations or were used to support Communist activities in the Detroit area, those facts, it is reasonable to suppose, would be shown by the records called for by the subpoena, and those facts would be highly pertinent to the Subcommittee’s inquiry. It thus appears that the records called for by the subpoena were not “plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose [of the Subcommittee] in the discharge of [its] duties,” Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501, 509, but, on the contrary, were reasonably “relevant to the inquiry,” Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 209.
Finally, petitioner contends that the subpoena was so broad as to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. “[A]dequacy or excess in the breadth of the subpoena are matters variable in relation to the nature, purposes and scope of the inquiry,” Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, supra, at 209. The Subcommittee’s inquiry here was a relatively broad one — whether “there has been Communist activity in this vital defense area [Detroit], and if so, the nature, extent, character and objects thereof” — and the permissible scope of materials that could reasonably be sought was necessarily equally broad.
It is not reasonable to suppose that the Subcommittee knew precisely what books and records were kept by the Civil Rights Congress, and therefore the subpoena could only “specif [y] . . . with reasonable particularity, the subjects to which the documents . . . relate,” Brown v. United States, 276 U. S. 134, 143. The call of the subpoena for “all records, correspondence and memoranda” of the Civil Rights Congress relating to the three specified subjects describes them “with all of the particularity the nature of the inquiry and the [Subcommittee’s] situation would permit,” Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, supra, at 210, n. 48. “[T]he description contained in the subpoena was sufficient to enable [petitioner] to know what particular documents were required and to select them accordingly,” Brown v. United States, supra, at 143. If petitioner was in doubt as to what records were required by the subpoena, or found it unduly burdensome, or found it to call for records unrelated to the inquiry, he could and should have so advised the Subcommittee, where the defect, if any, “could easily have been remedied,” United States v. Bryan, supra, at 333. This subpoena was not more sweeping than those sustained against challenges of undue breadth in Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501, and Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186.
Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the breadth of the subpoena was such as to violate the Fourth Amendment.
, 7 Affirmed.
“Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”
See note 4.
Petitioner’s motion to dismiss challenged the indictment on the grounds, among others, (1) that it failed to state “the relationship, if any, between the defendant and the Civil Rights Congress whose records defendant was required to produce,” or that they “were subject to the control or in the custody of the defendant”; (2) that it failed to state facts showing “the inquiry [to be] within the purview of the” Subcommittee, “and the relevancy and materiality to [the] inquiry of the records called for in the subpoena”; and (3) that the scope of the subpoena violated “defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The letter — taken from the Subcommittee’s files — was on the letterhead of the Civil Rights Congress, dated February 16, 1952— just 10 days prior to the Detroit hearing — over petitioner’s name, and what purported to be his signature, as Executive Secretary. Despite the identity of names and the rule that “identity of names is prima facie evidence of identity of persons,” Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32, 47, the trial court, upon petitioner’s objection, excluded the exhibit from consideration by the jury but received it for his own consideration in respect to the questions of law presented.
See also the companion case of United States v. Fleischman, 339 U. S. 349, which is equally relevant to these questions.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?

Choices:
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Military Review
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
U.S. Customs Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Tax Court
Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
U.S. Court for China
U.S. Consular Courts
U.S. Commerce Court
Territorial Supreme Court
Territorial Appellate Court
Territorial Trial Court
Emergency Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Bankruptcy Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
Alaska U.S. District Court
Arizona U.S. District Court
Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
California Central U.S. District Court
California Eastern U.S. District Court
California Northern U.S. District Court
California Southern U.S. District Court
Colorado U.S. District Court
Connecticut U.S. District Court
Delaware U.S. District Court
District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
Florida Middle U.S. District Court
Florida Northern U.S. District Court
Florida Southern U.S. District Court
Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
Guam U.S. District Court
Hawaii U.S. District Court
Idaho U.S. District Court
Illinois Central U.S. District Court
Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
Kansas U.S. District Court
Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
Maine U.S. District Court
Maryland U.S. District Court
Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
Michigan Western U.S. District Court
Minnesota U.S. District Court
Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
Missouri Western U.S. District Court
Montana U.S. District Court
Nebraska U.S. District Court
Nevada U.S. District Court
New Hampshire U.S. District Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
New Mexico U.S. District Court
New York Eastern U.S. District Court
New York Northern U.S. District Court
New York Southern U.S. District Court
New York Western U.S. District Court
North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
North Dakota U.S. District Court
Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
Oregon U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
Rhode Island U.S. District Court
South Carolina U.S. District Court
South Dakota U.S. District Court
Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
Texas Northern U.S. District Court
Texas Southern U.S. District Court
Texas Western U.S. District Court
Utah U.S. District Court
Vermont U.S. District Court
Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
Virginia Western U.S. District Court
Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
Washington Western U.S. District Court
West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
Wyoming U.S. District Court
Louisiana U.S. District Court
Washington U.S. District Court
West Virginia U.S. District Court
Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
Alabama U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
Georgia U.S. District Court
Illinois U.S. District Court
Indiana U.S. District Court
Iowa U.S. District Court
Michigan U.S. District Court
Mississippi U.S. District Court
Missouri U.S. District Court
New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
New York U.S. District Court
North Carolina U.S. District Court
Ohio U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
Tennessee U.S. District Court
Texas U.S. District Court
Virginia U.S. District Court
Norfolk U.S. District Court
Wisconsin U.S. District Court
Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
California U.S. District Court
Florida U.S. District Court
Arkansas U.S. District Court
District of Orleans U.S. District Court
State Supreme Court
State Appellate Court
State Trial Court
Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
Middle Circuit (of the United States)
Southern Circuit (of the United States)
Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
Utah U.S. Circuit

Answer: 71