Document: 384 U.S. 364 86 S.Ct. 1531 16 L.Ed.2d 622 Salvatore SHILLITANI, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. Andimo PAPPADIO, Petitioner, v. UNITED Nos. 412 and 442. Argued March 2, 1966. Decided June 6, Albert J. Krieger, New York City, Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 These consolidated cases again present difficult question whether a charge contempt against witness refusal to answer questions before grand jury requires an indictment trial. In both cases, proceedings were instituted after petitioners had refused testify under immunity granted by respective District Courts. Neither petitioner was indicted or given Both found guilty sentenced two years' imprisonment, with proviso that if either answered his sentence ended, he would be released. The Court in Pappadio is reported at 235 F.Supp. 887 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1964). Shillitani, simply entered order, which not reported. Appeals Second Circuit affirmed each conviction separate opinions. United States Pappadio, 346 F.2d 5 (2 Cir., 1965); 345 290 1965). We certiorari review validity sentences imposed cases. 382 913, 916, 287, 15 231 (1965). hold conditional nature these renders actions civil proceeding, trial are constitutionally required. However, since term contumacious has expired, judgments below must vacated remanded dismissal. I. 2 No. 412, Shillitani States. 3 appeared subpoena investigating possible violations federal narcotics laws. On three occasions questions, invoking privilege self-incrimination. At Government's request, Judge then him Narcotic Control Act 1956, 18 U.S.C. § 1406 (1964 ed.), ordered certain questions. When called again, persisted refusal. Thereafter, proceeding Rule 42(b) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure,1 criminal contempt. No requested. prison years 'or until further order this Should * those expiration said sentence, discharge jury, whichever may first occur, made terminating imprisonment.' affirmed, rejecting Shillitani's constitutional objection imposition two-year without on basis 'the preceded any compliance' 'sentence contained purge clause.' It construed as giving unqualified right released when obeyed testify. F.2d, 294. 4 same jury. He also times numerous ground answers incriminate him. directed continued refuse except identification. opposition jury's subsequent request require cooperate, attorney claimed should so long 1958 charging conspiracy violate laws pending. held complete immunity, including pending, all previously asked. Upon return did respond but still five pertaining alleged association group headed Thomas Lucchese engaged traffic other illicit activities.2 An show cause issued, Pappadio's demand denied, willful disobedience its received almost identical grounds.3 II. believe character purpose clearly render them rather than proceedings. See Penfield Co. Securities & Exchange Comm., 330 585, 590, 67 918, 921, 91 L.Ed. 1117 (1947). As distinction phrased Gompers Bucks Stove Range Co., 221 418, 449, 31 492, 501, 55 797 (1911), act consisted solely 'in refusing do what been ordered,' i.e., doing prohibited.' And imprisonment obvious compelling witnesses obey orders carry keys their own pockets,' re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (C.A.8th Cir. 1902), action 'is essentially remedy designed benefit parties quite properly exercised centuries secure compliance judicial decrees.' Green States, 356 165, 197, 78 632, 650, 672 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting). short, chosen they have faced jail. This evident from statement time Shillitani: 6 'I want make it clear intended much way punishment asked you.' (Emphasis supplied.) interpreted conditional: 'We construe judgment case mean defendant once obeys Wyatt's order. thus construed, entirely proper.' While briefed issues reference contempt, counsel Government conceded argument remedial, therefore might well deemed criminal.4 7 fact petitioners' conduct 'criminal contempt' does disturb our conclusion. Courts often speak terms remedial purposes. See, e.g., Onan, 190 1951). 'It punishment, purpose, serve distinguish' Buck 441, 498 (1911). Despite imprisoned definite period, operate prospective manner coerce, punish. such, relate course, punitive deterrent effects, viewed court conditions release upon contemnor's willingness Nye 313 33, 42—43, 61 810, 812 813, 85 1172 (1941). test stated as: primarily seek accomplish imposing sentence? Here obtain jury.5 III. 8 There can no courts inherent power enforce lawful through Mine Workers, 258, 332, 677, 713—714, 884 (1947) (Black Douglas, JJ., concurring part dissenting part); Barnett, 376 681, 753—754, 84 984, 1019—1020, 12 23 (1964) (Goldberg, essential able compel appearance testimony witnesses. Bryan, 339 323, 331, 70 724, 730, 94 (1950). A command respect. Cf. Levine 362 610, 617, 80 1038, 1043, 989 (1960). Where consists stage proceedings, confined compliance. McCrone 307 61, 59 685, 83 1108 (1939); Giancana 352 921 (C.A.7th Cir.), cert. 959, 437, (1965).6 imprisonment—based defiance—justifies holding absent safeguards Uphaus Wyman, 388, 403—404, 81 153, 155, 148 (1960) (Douglas, dissenting), provided usual due process requirements met.7 9 justification coercive applied depends ability contemnor comply court's Maggio Zeitz, 333 56, 76, 68 401, 411, 92 476 (1948). finally discharged, longer opportunity himself Accordingly, improper insofar extended beyond cessation inquiry into activities.8 Having sought deal only lacked authority imprison period limitation accords doctrine exercise '(t)he least adequate end proposed.' Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 231, 242 (1821); Michael, 326 224, 227, 66 78, 79, 90 30 (1945).9 length fortuitous circumstances, such life appears, relevance situation. That apply unconditional purposes, involves different considerations. Once ceases function, rationale vanishes, Since expired 1965, here vacated, directions dismissed. ordered. 10 Judgments directions. 11 BLACK concurs result. WHITE took decisions rule provides: 'Disposition Notice Hearing. subdivision (a) shall prosecuted notice. notice state place hearing, allowing reasonable preparation defense, facts constituting charged describe such. orally judge open presence or, application appointed arrest. entitled Congress provides. admission bail rules. If disrespect criticism judge, disqualified presiding hearing defendant's consent. verdict finding guilt enter fixing punishment.' 442, follows: 'Mr. who attorneys meetings?' 'Aside meetings you described, street, where else meet Lucchese?' 'Who besides yourself, attorneys?' 'All right; How many there?' 'Where take place?' Because similarity language between orders, assume absolute compliance, although silent point. record indicates matter following colloquy offers one example: Lawler: Your Honor, primary investigation evidence indictments filed voted upon, I suggest include clause directed, your Honor reconsider we will some effect Pappadio. 'The Court: Yes, adopt proposal presented Assistant Attorney Lawler, my decision provision reading form proposed *.' stressed function opposing applications pending appeal contrary, characterized deterrence. Cheff Schnackenberg, 377, 1524. impose determinate includes clause. type incorrigible witness. raises none problems surrounding unless testifies within specified years. Reina 507, 260, 249 Parker 153 66, 70, 163 A.L.R. 379 (C.A.1st 1946). By token, reimposed adhere successor consider feasibility coercing resort sanctions determines, good reason, inappropriate.

Category: 0