Document: 349 U.S. 190 75 S.Ct. 687 99 L.Ed. 997 Julius EMSPAK, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 9. Reargued April 4, 5, 1955. Decided May 23, Messrs. David Scribner and Frank J. Donner, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is a companion case to Quinn v. United States, 155, 668. Challenged in each proceeding conviction under 2 U.S.C. § 192, U.S.C.A. District Court Columbia.1 The two cases arose out same investigation by Committee on Un-American Activities House Representatives. Because similarity legal issues presented, were consolidated argument this Pursuant subpoena, petitioner appeared December 1949, before subcommittee Activities. consisted single member, Rep. Morgan M. Moulder. Petitioner was then General Secretary-Treasurer Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers America as well Editor UE News, union's official publication. subcommittee's hearings had previously been announced concerning 'the question Communist affiliation or association certain members' union advisability tightening present security requirements industrial plants working Government contracts.'2 3 asked total 239 questions. Most dealt with structure union, duties its officers, scope membership bargaining commitments, alleged policies News Party, non-Communist affidavit that filed National Labor Relations Board, related matters. answered all these He declined, however, answer 68 These questions exclusively petitioner's associations affiliations. based his refusal 'primarily first amendment, supplemented fifth.'3 Of questions, 58 substance he state whether not acquainted named individuals those ever held positions union. Two concerned Federation Constitutional Liberties Civil Rights Congress. Eight activity Party. 4 On November 20, 1950, indicted 192 questions.4 Sitting without jury, references fifth' insufficient invoke Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.5 accordingly found guilty counts sentenced him term six months fine $500. Appeals Columbia Circuit, three judges dissenting, affirmed en banc.6 From decision granted certiorari.7 I. 5 As pointed 668, no ritualistic formula talismanic phrase essential order self-incrimination. All necessary an objection stated language committee may reasonably be expected understand attempt privilege. In we hold Quinn's "the First Amendments" Amendment Constitution, Amendment" sufficient meet standard. It would unwarranted, think, reach different conclusion here plea fifth.' 6 does even distinguish between respect. Apparently conceding intended privilege, points probability' likewise deliberately phrased muffled terms 'to obtain benefit incurring popular opprobrium which often attaches exercise.'8 basis contends adequate. contention threefold. First, sufficiently clear reveal probable intention cannot ignored merely because it orthodox manner. Second, if true times stigma somehow result from witness' reliance Self-Incrimination Clause, should more ready recognize veiled claim Otherwise, great right Clause secure might effectively frustrated private pressures. Third, noted obliged either accept reject ambiguous constitutional very moment presented. way always open inquire into nature making ruling. If witness intelligently unequivocally waives any refuses request relies later protection prosecution contempt refusing question. 7 argues did fact waive at least one count indictment, can sustained alone.9 response associations, expressed apprehension 'trying perhaps frame people possible criminal prosecution' added 'I think I have reserve whatever rights have. * *'10 following colloquy took place:11 8 'Mr. Is your feeling knowledge them subject you prosecution? Emspak. don't has pry my associations. That own position.' 9 Petitioner's reply, contended, constituted effective disclaimer We find merit. declared Smith 337 137, 150, 69 1000, 1007, 93 1264: 'Although self-incrimination must claimed, when claimed guaranteed Constitution. Waiver lightly inferred. A properly after waived upon vague uncertain evidence.' 10 case, believe, controlling here. outset questioning OPA examiner, "I want anything say." examiner accepted statement immunity afforded involuntary witnesses Price Control Act 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 901 et seq. proceeded basis. question, made voluntary. ensued: 11 'Question. voluntary statement. You do respect statement? Answer. No.' 12 subsequent violation Act, 'No' statement.12 unanimously reversed, stating, page 151, 1007: 'Without effort clarify 'No', went ahead restate long further intimation answers considered circumstances equivocal waiver previous definite general self-incrimination.' Similarly, instant treated express Amendment. At most, equivocal.13 represented justifiable discuss reasons underlying assertion privilege; little avail invoking required disclose precise hazard fears.14 And taken responsive still consistent limited admissions 'would (a witness) prosecution'; repeatedly 'Whether such themselves support statute immaterial'15 also extends only tend incriminate.16 event, say unambiguous warrant finding To conclude otherwise violate Court's oft-repeated admonition courts 'indulge every reasonable presumption fundamental rights.'17 13 Throughout entire proceeding—in trial Court, appeal Appeals, certiorari-the never denied entitled it. during expressly conceded incriminatory character. addition, neither nor saw fit introduce issue case. are therefore reluctant so now. But doubts some members make consideration necessary. 14 'To sustain privilege,' recently held, 'it need evident implications setting asked, explanation why dangerous injurious disclosure could result.'18 nearly 150 years ago Marshal enunciated similar test: 'Many links frequently compose chain testimony convict individual crime. appears court sense rule compellable furnish himself.'19 Applying test doubt eight Party fell within privilege.20 Congress; both organizations cited Communist-front organizations. There remains already abundantly incrimination, fall privilege.21 15 What setting—as revealed record—in asked? Each charged having October 14, less than prior appearance committee, eleven principal leaders country convicted conspiring teach advocate violent overthrow States.22 identified their associate defendants. reported indictments other being prepared. weeks appearance, newspapers carried story Department 'within thirty days' take 'an important step' toward connection Board.23 16 Under circumstances, seems 'might result.' about individuals—all affiliations—could furnished 'a link chain' evidence needed prosecute federal crime, ranging conspiracy filing false Taft-Hartley 29 141 so, immaterial sought information able explain away innocent unrelated Communism. incriminatory, deprived subsequently prosecuted refute inference guilt arising answer.24 II. 17 here, second ground our decision. time specifically overrule Amendment, indicate overruling directing answer. absence action, confronted clear-cut choice compliance noncompliance, answering risking contempt. For set opinion, believe committee—by failing minimal procedural standards, originally recognized re-adopted—did adequately apprise notwithstanding objections. apprisal, there lacking element deliberateness III. 18 Our disposition makes unnecessary pass contentions grand jury. judgment below reversed remanded directions enter acquittal. 19 Reversed. 20 REED, dissenting. 21 HARLAN, 22 valid requisites: (1) invoked, (2) asserted tendency incriminate person whom addressed. Although Emspak's invocation left much desired, agree majority's view adequate, Emspak abandoned claim. dissent holding involved indictment called possibly answers. 23 holds, alternative reversing Subcommittee, apprised insisting put him. dissent. 24 My disagreement scores goes indictment.1 recognizes, upholding require affirmance below, sentence imposed maximum allowable count. See Sinclair 1929, 279 263, 299, 49 268, 273, 73 692. 25 Incriminatory Character Questions. 26 quite true, majority observes, below. problem inadequate. reason pressed point. This, foreclose considering Swift Co. Hocking Valley R. Co., 1917, 243 281, 289, 37 287, 61 722. due deal twofold: first, hold, does, Counts character me verge abandonment exists questions; second, recent decisions appear leave standard determining confusion. example, Third Circuit occasion manifest bewilderment where aspect now stands light States Coffey, 1952, 198 F.2d 438. short, judging needs rehabilitation restatement. 27 28 concept incriminating includes constitute admission guilt, but supply lead obtaining evidence. Counselman Hitchcock, 1892, 142 547, 195, 35 1110. almost regarded useful evidence, furnishing conceivable charge unlike defendant jury judicial legislative allowed, claiming refuse all. completely subordinate public interest conduct proceedings. Accordingly, lest claims used cover perform duty co-operate proceedings, bounds exercise Those 1861 English Queen's Bench Queen Boyes, B. S. 311, 330—331, adopted country. Brown Walker, 1896, 161 591, 599—600, 644, 647—648, 40 819; Mason 244 362, 365—366, 621, 622—623, 1198. Boyes Cockburn, C.J., said: 30 'Further this, danger apprehended real appreciable, reference ordinary operation law course things—not imaginary unsubstantial character, extraordinary barely contingency, improbable man suffer influence conduct. remote naked possibility, affected by, suffered obstruct administration justice. 31 object afford party, give inter alios, brought means penalties law. convert salutary abuse mere possibility danger, however improbable, justify withholding ends justice.' 32 consistently 'real possibility' proper applied deciding particular supra; Heike 1913, 227 131, 144, 33 226, 228, 57 450; Rogers 1951, 340 367, 71 438, 95 344; Blau 340, 159, 161, 223, 224, 170; Hoffman 341 479, 486, 814, 818, 1118. per curiam reversals convictions indicated stray application traditional standard.2 shall presently show departed next requiring is: How face call answers? Weisman, 1940, 111 260, Second substantially form: 'Did know anyone who visited lived Shanghai 1934 1939?' surface things—had nothing appeared—the question—' Yes,' know'—would innocent. situation imagined tended incriminate, itself enough Additional facts appeared, showed part pattern: night club proprietor, unlikely residents visitors, engaged transactions looking suspiciously like importations narcotics China. facts, incrimination exist court, through Judge Learned Hand. argued implicating see Wigmore, Evidence, §§ 2260—2261; purposes assume correct one. 34 course, background apparently known court. Then word incriminating, sure, involves will Nevertheless, traditionally allowed sole judge objected to; door wide supra. suspected exist, disappears, point suspicions. (3) Application 36 ought fashion Such include crime which, while face, developed. serve cast Suppose men conspired steal cash bank day business hours. theft, pleads developed tellers worked cage ten years. Certainly, seen rationally said establish or, realistic sense, aid discovering them, since independent presence day. words, dangerous, they available, account facts—not just tending dangerous. 38 suggest defense naught whenever offer exculpatory submit available plain prove leads harm 39 (4) come finally how indictment.3 Typical following: 'Are Joseph Persily?'; 'Is Max Helford field organizer UE?' 41 more, certainly enough. confronting us existing incriminatory. start premises: Subcommittee pattern witnesses, fair Subcommittee's objectives communists responsibility Union. turn starting prosecutions noncommunist affidavits Act4 violations Act.5 justified all, persons referred Emspak, himself, communist Indeed, oral much. Had admitted knowing people, communists. While factors sufficed lower gone far direction. Kasinowitz Cir., 181 632; Raley, D.C.1951, 96 F.Supp. 495; Falknor, Self-Crimination Privilege: 'Links Chain,' Vand.L.Rev. 485—489 (1952). 42 circumstances. told Secretary Union, knew personally. things difficult what position Union affiliations, himself forcible falsely sworn communist. Nor material assistance providing Investigators presumably officials. Thus, position, proper. 43 additional admissible trial. admissible, though utilized prosecutor acquaintance step proving conspiracy, thus spared necessity testified prevented use body except perjury giving testimony.6 extent depends solely admissibility trial, hardly score. 44 last analysis, rest premise became automatically once shown interrogated suspicion communism. painting too broad brush. 45 sometimes walk tightrope contempt, nonincriminatory. extend seem likely are. doctrine exception confined special unfair apply rule, counsel, ignorant confused, like. Some proceedings obviously designed develop witness, Marcello 196 437; Maffie 1954, 209 225. sweeping, room done openly, guise nonincriminatory No exception. counsel intelligent shrewd witness. most readily drawn record 'stool pigeon' associates. motive not, vitiate furnishes excuse 46 Knowledge Wanted Its Questions Answered. 47 holds objects until clearly demands answer, objection. Until then, evidenced requisite intent, is, deliberate elaborates thesis decided today, applies Bart 219, 712, today. 48 am unable score, REED'S criticism dissenting opinions cases. consider desirable, elaborate somewhat REED said. Section speaks 'Refusal' implies simply recognition failure inability confuses matter 'refusal' 'intentional' 'deliberate' 'criminal intent.' 692, relies, discussed Murdock, 1933, 290 389, 396, 397, 54 78 381, bad purpose evil intent ingredient pertinent inquiry. Beyond thinking couples becomes 'intentional.' Committee, requirement 'deliberateness' met. part, analysis rather 'refusal answer,' prima facie statute, chosen press further. bearing refusal, 'deliberate,' connotes more. determined speaks. 51 Thus hinged statute. Perhaps derived, statute's overall purpose: enable committees wish treating unfairly. privileged presenting, length, colorable propriety terminate apparent acceptable Committee. choose standing validity 52 construction establishes, quarrel 'clearly apprised' unsatisfactory wishes meant go itself. Moreover, lenient met surely shows that, despite objections, wanted After number preliminary organization discussion place him, Congressman Moulder, Tavenner, Counsel: 53 Tavenner. Persily? Chairman, something 55 mean question? 56 question; yes, position. 'What revolves around points, organizationally another individual. Organizationally, job officer represent determine annual conventions getting together expressing themselves. administer best ability, using simple measuring stick, Does given policy action contribute well-being membership, individually collectively? 'As thing, this: line developing numerous occasions congressional harass leadership, members. grain American. born Everything am— take, Emspak? 59 About minutes. 60 Proceed. am, owe rich heritage tradition kind, especially stooped interfere partisan affairs local perverted, greater better country—I beliefs, else. couple kids. They stake country, too. 62 full opportunity yourself oration 63 oration. happens profound personal feeling. 64 65 Are Persily. 66 spell that? 67 P-e-r-s-i-l-y. country— man. 70 not? 72 permitted 74 going days, activities committee— 76 hysteria, endeavor protect primarily fifth. corrupt rights. 77 Do corrupts do. 79 Why you? 80 Your Every that. interfered summer election priest. dragged down prestige 81 over committee. 82 to. 83 statements preposterous. expose communism 84 85 before, 86 87 88 89 replies comply it? 90 '(Witness confers counsel.) 91 92 ability Any questions? 94 Yes. capacity Persily associated time? again. UE? 97 98 it.' 100 Following exactly relating Persily, reiterated, minor variations: 'Same answer.' obviously, record, appearing so. impossible 101 Were written necessary, affirming conviction, urges reversal. Since appropriate them. content none tenable record. 102 affirm conviction. provides: 'Every summoned authority Congress produce papers inquiry House, joint established concurrent resolution Houses Congress, willfully default, who, inquiry, deemed misdemeanor, punishable $1,000 $100 imprisonment common jail month twelve months.' Hearings Regarding Infiltration Unions, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. Part 1, 541—542. questioning, place: rights.' (Italics added.) Hearings, supra, note 2, II, 839. motions dismiss denied. 1010, 1012. unreported, Criminal 1742—50 (D.D.C.). Matles, 1745—50 (D.D.C.), district directed acquittal James similarly relied Amendments.' 856. Matles' Moulder understood U.S.App.D.C. 378, 203 54. 346 809, 338. argument, restored docket reargument. 347 1006, 861, 1132. Brief p. 33, permissible 840. Id., 841. Daisart Sportswear, Inc., 169 856, 862—863. St. Pierre, 128 979, 980, approvingly quotes "Nor appellant several committed crime; contradiction, nervous excitable overcome privilege." Cf. 261. 1118; Burr, Fed.Cas. 38, 40, 14,692e. 170. pages 486 487, 818; pp. 40—41, 18, infra. Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 1019, 1023, 1461. also, e.g., Glasser 315 60, 70, 457, 680, 1264. 486—487, Compare laid Arndstein McCarthy, 254 71, 72, 26, 138: 'It propounded, disclosed, impunity.' 440: conceivably prosecutor, building seemingly harmless proceed suggested scheme linkage incredible latter connection, credibility connecting chain, reputation history significant. 'Finally, really apprehends permit skeptical; acutely aware deviousness detection approached achieved obscure lines inquiry.' Brunner 343 918, 674, 1332, reversing, 167. Singleton, 193 465, "What in?" individuals. summarily 944, 1041, 1349, citing 1118, Greenberg 1332. decision, 185 617, upheld whereabouts defendant. 201, among others, asking identify 'men numbers business.' 187 40. 24, 2385, 371, 371. 159(h), 159(h); 1001, 1001. uniform sort See, Hand 261, visited, in, stayed at, 1939; Augustus Zwillman, 108 802, associates 1928 1932; Denman 632, Dorothy Healy Healy's occupation; 225, 231, 'Specs' O'Keefe Stanley Gusciora; Holmes Estes Potter, 183 865, personally alien; Rives 437, 442, "Do Salvatore Vittali?"; Martin Aiuppa 201 L. O'Donnell Anthony Accardo; Maris re Neff, 206 149, A.L.R.2d 1398, Zinman Lou Malinow. Alexander 480; Doran 489; Healey 186 164; Poretto 392, 396; Girgenti, 197 218; 438; Daly 232, 233. Kiewel 204 1; Doto, 205 416. However, since, event reversal counts, answers, 1013, 1369; 1332; Singleton face. 59—68 qualified, Stat. 146, 159(h). 2385. R.S. 859, (1952 ed.) 3486, 3486: 'No testimony. paper produced privilege.' falling short complete grant compel prevent prosecution. Adams State Maryland, 179, 182—183, 608. effect August superseded 745. supersession affect inadmissibility old effect. Cameron 1914, 231 710, 244, 448. commit justification Noonan, Inferences Invocation Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Va.L.Rev. 321—322 (1955).

Category: 0