Document: 349 U.S. 155 75 S.Ct. 668 99 L.Ed. 964 Thomas QUINN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 8. Reargued April 4, 5, 1955. Decided May 23, Messrs. David Scribner, Frank J. Donner, New York City, for petitioners. Mr. Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted contempt Congress under 2 U.S.C. § 192, U.S.C.A. in District Court Columbia. Section 192 provides punishment any witness before a congressional committee 'who * refuses to answer question pertinent inquiry *.'1 On appeal, Appeals Columbia Circuit reversed conviction and remanded case new trial.2 Claiming that should have directed an acquittal, petitioner applied this certiorari. We granted writ because fundamental recurrent character questions presented.3 Pursuant subpoena, appeared on August 10, 1949, subcommittee Committee Un-American Activities House Representatives. then member field representative United Electrical, Radio Machine Workers Also subpoenaed appear day were Fitzpatrick Panzino, two officers same union. At outset hearings, counsel announced purpose investigation inquire into 'the Communist affiliation or association certain members' union advisability tightening present security requirements industrial plants working Government contracts.'4 All three witnesses asked concerning alleged membership Party. declined answer. 3 first be called testify. He based his refusal fifth Amendments' as well amendment Constitution, supplemented by amendment.'5 Immediately following Fitzpatrick's testimony, Panzino stand. In response identical put Fitzpatrick, specifically adopted own grounds relied upon Fitzpatrick.6 addition, at one point stated 'I think again, Chairman, amendment, is my personal belief.'7 day, petitioner, unaccompanied counsel, stand also whether he had ever been Like him, answer, adopting Fitzpatrick.8 4 November 20, 1950, all indicted their refusals answer.9 The cases tried different judges, each sitting without jury. acquitted. case, it held references amendments' amendment' constituted adequate means invoking Self-Incrimination Clause Fifth Amendment.10 Similarly, Panzino's reference sufficient plead privilege.11 petitioner's however, may not incorporate position another rejected defense Clause.12 accordingly sentenced term six months jail fine $500. 5 reversing conviction, Appeals, en banc, 'No formula specific expression required' order privilege adopt plea made previous witness.13 Thus viewed principal issue 'whether did claim privilege.'14 issue, majority expressed no view. They agreed reversal more would if they 'were clear therefore Quinn, privilege'. But 'not opinion.'15 ordered trial determination Court.16 retrial determine 'was aware intention inquirer answers required despite objections.'17 regard, contention cannot unless overruled objections him answer.18 6 It from decision I. 7 There can doubt power Congress, itself through its committees, investigate matters conditions relating contemplated legislation. This power, deeply rooted American English institutions, indeed co-extensive with legislate. Without investigate—including course authority compel either processes19 judicial trial20—Congress could seriously handicapped efforts exercise constitutional function wisely effectively.21 8 investigate, broad be, subject recognized limitations. used private affairs unrelated valid legislative purpose.22 Nor does extend area which forbidden legislate.23 must confused powers law enforcement; those are assigned our Constitution Executive Judiciary.24 Still further limitations found individual guarantees Bill Rights, such Amendment's against self-incrimination here.25 9 right hardearned forefathers. reasons inclusion Constitution—and necessities preservation—are lessons history.26 As early 1650, remembrance horror Star Chamber procedings decade firmly established common England. Transplanted country part legal heritage, soon way various state constitutions ultimately 1791 federal Rights. privilege, has stated, generally regarded then, now, great value, proection innocent though shelter guilty, safeguard heedless, unfounded, tyrannical prosecutions.'27 Coequally other guarantees, 'must accorded liberal construction favor intended secure.'28 Such particularly warranted prosecution since respect normally buttressed presumption innocence defendant criminal trial. To apply narrowly begrudgingly treat historical relic, most merely tolerated ignore development purpose. 10 instant refusing committee's Clearly might tended incriminate him.29 consequence, entitled privilege. here did. 11 require special combination words.30 Plainly need skill lawyer invoke protection Clause. If objection language reasonably expected understand attempt respected both court 192. 12 Here amendment.' concedes—as we must—that stating refuse testify ground Amendment.' Surely, popular parlance even literature, 'Fifth Amendment' context time commonly being synonymous self-incrimination. argues, Amendment inadequate statements understood rights First Amendment. find Government's argument untenable. mere fact preclude reliance well.31 urges line questioning, bound peril choose between them. By pressing objections, lose only one. 13 Government, moreover, apparently concedes brief points out probability ambiguous phrased deliberately vague terms so enable obtain benefit incurring opprobrium often attaches exercise.'32 expresses immaterial long sufficiently definite apprise intention. everyone agrees, ritualistic necessary Quinn's clearly notice apparent became incumbent accept ask Particularly true, contends, feared stigma result forthright precisely times—when attack who wrongly conceive shield guilty—that governmental bodies scrupulous protecting exercise. 14 ruling leaves defenseless hands scheming intent deception. When declines free doubt, always open nature making ruling. unequivocally intelligently waives Clause, request relies later question. particularize objection. Under these circumstances, hold below erred failing direct judgment acquittal. II. 15 yet second decision. 16 like ordinary statute, requires intent—in instance, deliberate, intentional answer.33 element offense, other, proved beyond reasonable doubt. contends proof not, case. 17 every propounded subjects raises —for example, lack pertinency self-incrimination—the sustain abandon question, actually merit. witness' contumacious, there lacking requisite intent. Or disallow thus give choice answering not. Given choice, recede And fairly said foundation laid finding violate short, apprised demands notwithstanding question.34 18 Was here? overrule Amendment; nor indicate overruling directing absence action, never confronted clear-cut compliance noncompliance, risking contempt. best left guess accepted 19 ambiguity transcript hearing.35 after objection, chairman petitioner: '* will you now Party, do decline answer?' this, said: discuss nature.' thereupon questioning 'relating matters' necessary' proceeded inquiry. nothing colloquy determined degree certainty demanded despie Rather, wholly consistent hypothesis acquiesced 20 Our view disposition prerequisite supported long-standing tradition English-speaking nations.36 uniformly procedure courts.37 reflected practice committees prior enactment 1857; direction objection.38 Against background law.39 No relaxation safeguards afforded sponsors. explaining bill House, Congressman Davis expressly increased, added burden placed 'mere substitution' proceeding bar intended.40 reason enacting went offense. deal contemnor processes life session.41 crime, fixed imprisonment substituted variable periods custody dependent fortuity near beginning end session.42 change mode affected well-established elements Congress. Since recalcitrant continued prevail.43 fact, very involved here, Committee, originally followed practice44 recently resumed it.45 21 Giving fair apprisal recognizes legitimate interests committee. Just use particular form words resort verbal So forced ruling, cause complain. adherence traditional neither inflict hardship abridge proper scope investigation. III. 22 attacks involving novel issues. Resolution authorizing operations invalid denying hearing bias indicting grand makes unnecessary pass 23 directions enter 24 Reversed. 25 HARLAN, concurring. 26 I agree reached dissent holding II opinion. dissenting Emspak 190, 687. consider equally applicable what shown record 27 REED, dissenting. 28 punish petitioners, Representatives, questions. declared misdemeanor 29 separate opinions conclusion petitioners properly claimed himself guaranteed holds known communists Party prominent positions local union, communist infiltration national security, incriminatory witnesses.1 For make assumption, too. cases, directs remand acquit. charges excludes factual issues decides that, matter law, them Committee. indictments contained numerous counts covering many evidence showed varying answering, blankets sentences less than maximum penalty count, Court's wrong judgments wrong.2 Normally men reach conclusion. See discussion Judge Prettyman Quinn v. States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 203 F.2d 24, Bazelon pages 38. None judges suggested approval action takes 378, 54, 60. least here. 30 These sweeping decisions affect conduct inquiries courts, emerges legally enforceable rule handling hearings prosecutions when raise problem Court, opinion, 674, interrogator, once 'vague intention' 'either privilege.' Although phrasing, last clause, carries me probabilities uncertainties future applications former avoided,3 governing rule. My claiming just cited, witness. lead crime him. Therefore doing something suggesting least, 'apprise 31 having furnish interrogators, materiality coercion, actual facts seek. Legislation drafted available charged legislation maintenance peace. However, series Amendments wrote exception duty instance where person situation, self-incrimination, excused answering.4 That shriveled bloated. designed excuse guilty alike testifying compelled disclosures. importance preserving evidence, except definitely apprises interrogating body leads us dissent. Claim Privilege. 32 finds examining purpose, testimony considered evaluated light abilities 33 During active period rearmament investigating subversive situations sensitive electronic industry possible legislation.5 important field. organizer International Union Workers. General Secretary. third witness, but whose hereafter referred to, chief steward Westinghouse Corporation local. mentalities quality expect experienced officials responsible positions. 34 observed avoiding engaged exercises dialectics fell short advising ease layman, availability lawyers careful avoidance statement as, self-incrimination,' evidenced criticism some quarters, course, bearing necessity assert one's rights. emphasized ago moral turpitude privilege.6 35 While appellate courts printed group, subcommittees themselves, opportunity appraise disinterestedly answered citations contempt, certified 'to aforesaid deprived your *.'7 hardly contended know incriminating answering. 36 basis examination appraisal record, necessarily set much privilege.8 follows. 37 After length, asked: 'Mr. Emspak, acquainted Joseph Persily?' statement: 38 Emspak. say point. 39 Moulder. You mean question? 40 question; yes, position. 41 'What revolves around points, organizationally individual. Organizationally, job officer represent interest annual conventions getting together expressing themselves. administer aspect ability, using simple measuring stick, is: Does given policy contribute well-being membership, individually collectively? 42 'As thing, this: developing occasions harass leadership, members. goes grain American. born country. Everything am— 43 How take, Emspak? 44 About minutes. 45 Proceed. 46 am, owe rich heritage believe kind, especially recent stooped interfere partisan committee, which, perverted, greater better country—I don't go beliefs, associations, anything else. couple kids. stake country, 47 want full express yourself oration now. 48 oration. happens profound feeling. 49 What 50 Tavenner. Are Persily. 51 spell that? 52 P-e-r-s-i-l-y. 53 Because country— 54 man. 55 it. 56 not? 57 verge 58 explanation permitted 59 going days, activities committee— 60 hysteria, endeavor protect primarily fifth. corrupt 61 Do corrupts 62 certainly do. 63 Why you? 64 Your harm people Every taken done that. interfered summer election priest. dragged down prestige 65 take over 66 to. 67 preposterous. expose communism exists 68 Persily? 69 before, 70 Then 71 72 73 74 replies comply it? '(Witness confers counsel.) reveal 76 ability circumstances.' 77 subsequent questions, simply Later on, made: 78 essentially same, according press reports, presumably interested things individuals organization whatever disposal, trying perhaps frame prosecution. 79 see how why subjected kind maintain, know, feelings feeling interrupted me. intend, party kangaroo proceedings reserve appropriate up come up. 80 information prosecution? 81 No; don't, Chairman. basic proposition—and worked years few far concerned—a slick job— 82 concern all. 83 Is knowledge 84 pry associations. position.' 85 printed, excerpt shows exchange Count indictment arising thereunder based. related acquaintanceship Persily, man listed, stipulation, named official 'of UERMWA Front Affiliations.' Nothing favorable appears examined 86 offers example failure encumber unnecessarily quotations 87 entirety Local 601, establishing supra, note 8, 671. opened declaration minority secrecy follows: 88 'The minorities gives speak feel beliefs unpopular. secret desire. amendment. 89 Wood. is? 90 Fitzpatrick. Constitution.' indicated 'Are Party?' fencing about prying mind, 92 citizen unpopular, keep themselves fit, weakening destroying Constitution. am real Americans, phonies here.' 93 Copeland sign application organization. occurred. 94 again? 95 thing. 96 regardless did, affair action. 97 98 Amendments. further? 100 101 say, 102 comment it.' 103 phrases whole thought refer immunity 104 From draws witnesses' support theory 'intention' below.9 With respect, fail concession sentence quotation emphatically denies assumption. 105 records show calculated effort hinder delay bring undertake quibbling evades understanding attitude permissible. Factual ascertainment truth organized inquiries. Silence brings dead end. advise interrogators understandable terms.10 adoption smacks strongly 'due process' claim. speaking privacy, speech association, added: 106 actions loyalty, political opinions, asking way. memory right, thing affidavit supposed been.' Emspak's testimony. addition 681, 682, supra. 107 suggests construed waiver cites Smith 337 137, 151, 1000, 1007, 1264. apposite. immunity. definite, unambiguous waiver. was, view, 108 court, pp. 224—227, failed (the privilege).' Six nine members claimed. Three issue. 109 concur assertions value clause—that alike—and liberally cover literal reading phrase shall himself' suggest.11 sympathetic toward clause intrude ideas propriety hearings. today adds interference investigations trials, adding protecton freedom contrary get immunity, Compulsory Testimony Act 1954, Stat. 745, 3486 preceding 3481. 110 Direction Answer. 111 advances deliberate Committee's explains, 675, implied 'clearly objections,' and, 694 'without apprisal, deliberateness answer.' concludes 'specifically' otherwise informed objections. 112 admit, does, Opinion, 673, required. hand, admit obligation interrogator.12 offense punishable statute inadvertence, accident misunderstanding.13 Good faith intentional, deliberate. Sinclair 279 263, 299, 268, 274, 692, that: 113 gist Intentional violation constitute guilt.' 114 States Murdock, 284 141, 63, 210, similar involved. Murdock Internal Revenue Agent refused incriminated law. case: 115 'While undoubtedly lest tested willful denounced. definition complete failure.' U.S., page 148, S.Ct., 64. 116 raised, establishes include elements. 117 consummate pains 'There misapprehension' 'as for.' 274. excuses interposes frivolous, difficult intentionally interrogation continues pause cannot, fairness lull thinking acceptable cite Refusal circumstances necessary; is. 118 suggests, 36, 676, follow validity defect analogy seems assume formal vote inconsistent admission 677. provision cited requirement direction. knew acceded refusal.14 above, knows Whether 119 advised pleas. disagree. method heretofore discussed, seen Wood, member, Quinn: 120 Having enunciated sentiments position, answer? 121 Quinn. 122 This, reply satisfactory proceed. 123 think, too, repeatedly again: 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 continued, conclude, lower adequately 134 acquittal disagree grounds. Confining views issues, 135 MINTON joins applies States. section full: 'Every summoned produce papers joint concurrent resolution Houses willfully default, who, appeared, inquiry, deemed misdemeanor, $1,000 $100 month twelve months.' 20. 347 1008, 861, 1133. Hearings Regarding Infiltration Labor Unions, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. Part 1, 541—542. Id., 602, 604. 608. 609. 634—635: along lines yesterday regard nature. associations didn't declining Before Brother yesterday. Did hear yesterday? Yes; entirety? entirety. else add don't. Will views, then? may. matter, sacred. hiding behind standing it, defending small am. subscribed whom referred, Party? sacred people— Proceed, matters, James Matles? Yes.' Petitioner's motions dismiss denied sub nom. D.C.D.C., F.Supp. 1010, 1012. 491, 493. unreported, Criminal 1747 (D.D.C.). 1744—50 347, 23. U.S.App.D.C., 348, 24. Ibid. 349, F.2d, 25. Cf. Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 242. re Chapman, 166 661, 677, 1154. McGrain Daugherty, 273 135, 175, 319, 329, 580. 173—174, 328; Kilbourn Thompson, 168, 377. Compare Rumely, 345 41, 46, 543, 546, 770. 192—193, *.' Griswold, Today, 2—7. Twining State Jersey, 211 78, 91, 14, 16, 97. Boyd 616, 631—632, 524, 532—533, 746. Hoffman 341 479, 486, 814, 818, 1118. Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 562, 195, 197, 1110. Blau 340 159, 223, 170, protected privilege; Brunner 343 918, 1332, reversing, Cir., 190 167. 1264, characterized "I say", 142, 1003, 'definite general self-incrimination.' 1007. close relationship 26, 8—9. Brief p. 33. 273, 692. 672, 1154, while upholding constitutionality Kamp, 757, 759: 'Committees examinations manner cut default Kamp's fails disclose default. guessing game presiding explanations response.' grounds, Browder, 1784—50 binding jurisdictions worthy note. examples Ex parte McCarthy, Cal. 395, 398; People Keeler, N.Y. 463, 471, N.E. 615, 617; Lowe Summers, Mo.App. 637, 645. Recalcitrant British Commons traditionally respond legislature. reports House. questioned Bar votes rejected, Only imposed. Journals 212, 218 (Case Elizabeth Robinson Select Liverpool Bribery, 1833); 501, 504, Hans.Deb., 3d Ser. 1249, 1279—1288 William Prentice Great Yarmouth 1835); 564, 571, 575 Lieutenant Colonel Fairman Orange Lodges, 152 365 John Kirkwood Money Lending, 1897). Canadian practice, T. R. Preston Public Accounts, Agriculture Colonization, Commons. Commons, Canada, 298, 316, 323; id., Appendix 2, 324—327; 3, 250—251; Debates, Session 1906, Vol. III, 4451 4535. 1118: 'It silence justified 'it mistaken." Marshall Burr, Fed.Cas. 38, 40, 14,692e: 'When propounded, belongs decide implicate witness.' state, collected Wigmore, Evidence, 2271. See, e.g., Carlson 209 209, 214, Gendron Burnham, 146 Me. 387, 405—406, A.2d 773, 784—785, A.L.R.2d 210. introduced Orr proposing Simonton haled Representatives duly-authorized body. Cong. Globe, 34th 403—404 (1857). states part: impressed withheld embraced letter spirit made, anxious avoid controversy consequently waived interrogatory reflection consequences refusal, afford look notifying would, om recalled. 15th January instant. Tuesday, 20th instant, recalled, again due constrained report declination enforce premises 403. 31st 1716 (1850). Jan. 1857, c. 19, 155. 427. 230—231, 405 et seq. 40th 771—772 (1869); 42d 952 (1873); Cong.Rec. 1705 (1876) (citation Hallet Kilbourn, 22); 6143 (1894) Elverton 20); 4785 (1924) Harry F. 33); 2439, 5286, 5353, 7239 (1928); 1902, 1911—1914 (1934); 3856 (1940); 8163 (1944); 499 (1951). citation George Powers 3856—3857. H. Dolsen, 3694—3695. Saul Grossman, 8634 8637. 170; 693, 673. 299(7), ex rel. Vajtauer Commissioner, 103, 113, 302, 306, 560; Monia, 317 424, 427, 439, 409, 410, 416, 376; Rogers Staes, 367, 371, 438, 440, 344; cf. Adams Maryland, 179, 442, McCarthy Arndstein, 266 34, 158; 541. Proceedings Julius H.R.Rep.No.2847, 2d Sess., 10; H.R.Rep.No.2857, 3. Any desires essential consult Proceedings, H.R.Rep.No.2856. 'Under contend inform 'Moreover, (and (75 687)), Emspak) suggestion obvious extremely easy endanger notice, compelling immediate refrain public inferred, Communists sympathizers.' Govt. br., 33—34. 1110; (two cases), 170 332, 301, 306 (privilege jury proceedings); 17, 158, ordinarily sought used. civil proceedings, wherever tend responsibility protects fully defendant' (proceedings bankruptcy); Brown Walker, 161 591, 644, 819, Graham 746 (administrative Wood 265, 141 A.L.R. 1318 (preliminary hearings). Fields 354, 164 97, 100; Bart 370, 45, 48; 56. Townsend App.D.C. 229, 352, 358; 357, 100. 219, 687, 712, length 56; 50. also, comments, Geo.L.J. 137; 433.

Category: 0