Document: 340 U.S. 332 71 S.Ct. 301 95 L.Ed. 306 BLAUv.UNITED STATES. No. 21. Argued Nov. 7, 1950. Decided Jan. 15, 1951. Mr. Samuel D. Menin, Denver, Colo., for petitioner. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was summoned to appear before a federal district grand jury in Colorado. Both that body and judge where he later taken, petitioner declined answer questions concerning activities records Communist Party Colorado, claiming his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. He also refused reveal whereabouts wife, who wanted by as witness connection with same investigation. As this refusal testify, asserted disclosing confidential communications between husband wife. The overruled both claims sentenced six months prison contempt court. Court Appeals Tenth Circuit affirmed. 179 F.2d 559. 2 For reasons set out our recent Blau v. United States, 159, 223, we hold it error fail sustain claim 3 This leaves consideration validity sentence insofar rests on failure disclose In Wolfle 291 54 279, 78 617, recognized communication wife privileged. It is not disputed present case obtained knowledge from her. Nevertheless, Government insists should be denied benefit because failed prove information privately conveyed. contention ignores rule marital are presumptively confidential. supra, at page 14, 280; Wigmore, Evidence, § 2336. made no effort overcome presumption. case, moreover, kind likely Petitioner's according judge, knew she number others were 'wanted' witnesses but 'hid out, apparently so process * could served upon her.'1 Several appeared put jail Under such circumstances, seems highly probable Mrs. secretly told her found. betray wife's trust therefore understandable lawful. We have doubt entitled privilege.2 4 Reversed. 5 CLARK took part or decision case. 6 MINTON, whom JACKSON joins, dissenting. 7 If under circumstances obviously intended confidential, 280, 617. 8 Where suppresses relevant testimony, did here, 'be allowed only when plain confidence can otherwise reasonably preserved.' 17, 281. 9 Unless concealment, which does disclosure Not every blessed privilege. general evidence competency. Incompetency exception, bring one within must come reason exception. here protection confidence, merely spouses. me clear all shown communication. absent; what may know certainly 10 divulge whereabouts, contempt. Since received might single act contempt, conviction valid. Cf. Pinkerton 328 640, 641, n. 1, 66 1180, 1181, 90 1489; Hirabayashi 320 81, 85, 63 1375, 1378, 87 1774. conceived illegal, would without remedy, seek reduction thereof remand Rule 35 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. I intimate nothing issue. 11 affirm conviction. apprehended, year's imprisonment although other testify shorter sentences. sentencing Blau, stated: 'I haven't much sympathy lady because, said, defied avoiding very well yet hid court her.' view phase unnecessary reach question whether (which based give incriminating testimony communication) valid if one, both, privileges.

Category: 0