Document: 349 U.S. 133 75 S.Ct. 623 99 L.Ed. 942 In the Matters of Lee Roy MURCHISON and John White, Petitioners. No. 405. Argued April 20, 1955. Decided May 16, Mr. William L. Colden, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Edmund E. Shepherd, Lansing, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 Michigan law authorizes any judge its courts record to act as a so-called 'one-man grand jury.'1 He can compel witnesses appear before him in secret testify about suspected crimes. We have previously held that such 'judge-grand jury' cannot consistently with Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment summarily convict witness contempt conduct hearings. re Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 92 682. conviction could stand, due process requires minimum an accused be given public trial after reasonable notice charges, right examine against him, call on his own behalf, represented by counsel. The question now us is whether proceeding conducted accordance these standards complies requirement impartial tribunal where same presiding at hearing had also served out which charges arose. This does not involve, course, longexercised power punish certain occurring open court.2 2 petitioners, Murchison were called judge-grand jury.' Murchison, Detroit policeman, was interrogated length judge's hearings questions asked gambling bribery policemen. His answers left persuaded he committed perjury, particularly view other evidence then charged perjury ordered show cause why should punished criminal contempt.3 petitioner, summoned hearing. Asked numerous bribery, refused answer ground entitled under counsel present him. White cause. who been 'grand tried both petitioners court, convicted sentenced them contempt. Petitioners objected being this particular number reasons including: (1) expressly provides conducting inquiry will disqualified from or trying case arising motion dismiss quash complaint indictment growing it, charge 'except alleged neglect refusal response summons subpoena'; (2) time complainant, indicter prosecutor, constituted denial fair required Constitution United States. answered first challenge holding state statute barring cases violated it would deprive inherent interpretation binding here. As second did forbid try charges. rejected constitutional contentions made petitioners. State Supreme Court sustained all holdings affirmed.4 Importance federal raised caused grant certiorari.5 we take makes unnecessary consider decide those except proceedings.6 3 A basic process. Fairness course absence actual bias cases. But our system has always endeavored prevent even probability unfairness. To end no man permitted interest outcome. That defined precision. Circumstances relationships must considered. said, however, 'Every procedure offer possible temptation average * hold balance nice, clear, true between denies latter law.' Tumey v. Ohio, 273 510, 532, 47 437, 444, 71 749. Such stringent rule may sometimes bar judges do their very best weigh scales justice equally contending parties. perform high function way 'justice satisfy appearance justice.' Offutt States, 348 11, 14, 13. 4 It strange if jury persons result investigations. Perhaps ever forced defendant accept jurors proper pass hearings.7 single more part accusatory than ordinary lay juror. Having be, nature things, wholly disinterested acquittal accused. While likely zeal certainly said none zeal.8 Fair trials are too important free society let prosecuting they prefer.9 courtroom some circumstances judge. See Cooke 267 517, 539, 45 390, 395, 396, 69 767. adjudication immediate presence court likened proceedings For Oliver (333 501) person tried. 5 practical matter difficult impossible himself influence what took place 'grand-jury' session. recollection far heavily testimony illustrated incident occurred White's case. finding guilty 'there one thing show, attitude, I say attitude almost insolent manner upon stand. Not only personal insolent, but defiant, want put record.' defense counsel's strike statements because original 'That something wouldn't record, evident court.' Thus whom weighing presented knowledge impression room judgment based impression, accuracy tested adequate cross-examination. 6 shows doubtless familiar facts rooted witness. There give concerning chambers If there might able refute statement insolence. Moreover, shown here many times material later Charge heard judge, either deprived examining cross-examining else spectacle presenting finally determining guilt innocence defendant.10 event benefit while denied effective opportunity cross-examine. cross-examine essential jeopardized way. 7 violation therefore error uphold convictions. judgments reversed causes remanded inconsistent opinion. 8 Reversed. 9 REED MINTON, dissenting, BURTON joins. 10 holds unconstitutional contempt, acting one-man jury, full court. so blanket body, liberty without law. 11 conclusion rested irregularity Under investigation, secret, officials aid transcript testimony. nothing this. reduce customary one, impart investigatory duty member judiciary desires. Further, afforded counsel, explain requirements set down 682, met. 12 Court's determination sole fact cited presence, presided over leading final adjudication. neither nor biased. Nor Court, holds, law, 'interest' inherently prejudicial thus constitutionally invalid. different traditionally leads dissent. 13 Sacher 343 1, 72 451, 454, 96 71, upheld district presence. case, extended nine months, issued certificate actions during trial. formalities, hearings, taking evidence, arguments briefs. Rule 42 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., codified "prevailing usages law." specifically contention punishing assume role accuser complaining another simply stated exception: when becomes personally embroiled contemnor, step aside favor decision supervisory authority administration courts. though showing became enbroiled exercised, biased, law—of procedural process—a seems gone before. 14 presumably referring situation courts, states 'adjudication here.' reason cannot, told, 'we tried.' hardly explanatory, summary plenary bearing two situations, indistinguishable. simple allow hears issues subsequently summarily, punishment factual difference When require individual hearing, defend proffered make appeal. They more. 15 see how violates fundamental concepts play observed perfectly imposed exercise power. 16 relies deprives 'subject property direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary reaching case.' Id., page 523, 441. great permit rendition verdict compensation determined reaches. quite disqualify having render interest, maintenance order decorum investigation crime—an shares common 17 decided wise investigating hands observes preside contemnor. seem accepted judicial justify unconstitutionality. affirm. Mich.Stat.Ann.1954, §§ 28.943, 28.944, Comp.Laws 1948, 767.3, 767.4. 717; 767; Ex parte Savin, 131 267, 277, 699, 701, 702, 33 150. 273—278, 507—510, signed reads follows: 'It appearing Patrolman Murchinson (sic) wilfull corrupt obstructive effect obstructed wilfully giving false aforesaid, tend impair respect aforesaid sitting of, constitutes contempt; tenth day May, 1954, 10:00 o'clock forenoon acts.' 340 Mich. 140, 65 N.W.2d 296; 151, 301. 894, 216. challenges taken intimation passed another. See, e.g., Note, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 933, 953-954, 970-971. Apparently prosecution. passing request Murchison's two-day postponement 'There points suggest themselves me. 'One respondent going claim Shrewsberry, Ontario, Canada, March 9, ought furnished information days now, am you, checking ourselves.' (Emphasis supplied.) Because dual position surprising. Queen London County Council, (1892) Q.B. 190; ex rel. Getchel Bradish, 95 Wis. 205, 70 N.W. 172, 37 L.R.A. 289. Hale Wyatt, 78 N.H. 214, 98 A. 379. also, Witnesses—Competency—Competency Presiding Judge Witness, 28 Harv.L.Rev. 115.

Category: 3