Opinion ID: 453285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicability of Civil Contempt Statute

Text: 42 Scaduto argues finally that the civil contempt statute, 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1826, is not applicable to the instant case. He claims that, by its terms, Section 1826 applies only to witnesses who refuse[ ] without cause to testify in any proceeding before or ancillary to a federal court or grand jury, and the instant proceeding before the Commission is not before or ancillary to a court or grand jury. This claim is without merit. Because the Commission was obliged to secure Scaduto's testimony by writ of habeas corpus, and by enforcement of an immunity order, and because Scaduto took legal action to protect himself from the Commission's subpoena, the proceedings before the Commission became ancillary to proceedings before a court. Such a relationship is, moreover, specifically contemplated by P.L. 98-368(b)(1), which provides that when a court issues an order requiring an individual to testify before the Commission, failure to testify may be punished by the court as contempt thereof. Finally, Scaduto's interpretation conflicts with the documented intent of Congress to make Section 1826 applicable to a range of court-related proceedings, including depositions. See 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4007, 4022. The district court did not err in holding Scaduto in civil contempt under Section 1826. FAY, Circuit Judge, writing separately: