Document: 355 U.S. 66 78 S.Ct. 128 2 L.Ed.2d 95 Oleta O'Connor YATES, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 2. Argued Oct. 22, 1957. Decided Nov. 25, Mr. Leo Branton, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Philip R. Monahan, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case is one criminal contempt refusal to answer questions at trial. Petitioner, admittedly a high executive officer Communist Party California, and 13 codefendants were indicted convicted conspiracy violate Smith Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385.1 During trial, petitioner refused on June 30, 1952, 11 relating whether persons other than herself members Party. The District Court held in court each answer, imposed concurrent sentences year each, which commence upon petitioner's release from custody following execution five-year sentence case. judgment was affirmed by Appeals. 9 Cir., 227 F.2d 851. We granted certiorari. 350 947, 76 322, 100 L.Ed. 825. principal question presented finding separate constitutes an improper multiplication contempts. hold that it does, find only has been committed. circumstances conviction are these. After Government had rested its Act all but four defendants—petitioner three others—rested their cases. Petitioner took stand testified her own defense. afternoon first day cross-examination, 26, she about membership nondefendant codefendant who his case.2 In refusing stated, '* * (T)hat which, if I could lead situation person be caused suffer loss job perhaps subjected further harassment, cannot bring myself contribute that.' She added, 'However many times am asked however forms, identify as communist, can't do *.' adjudged guilty civil these questions, committed jail until should purge answering or order court. confined remainder trial.3 3 On third despite instructions way another called nine Communists. stated ground instances belief either named family 'be hurt by' such testimony. expressed willingness others Communists—and instance did so—if identification would not them. judge he expected treat refusals under Rule 42(a) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, U.S.C.A.4 Adjudication deferred completion 4 imposition case, court, acting U.S.C. 401, 401,5 found 'eleven contempts' 30. No raised form content specifications. 5 sentenced imprisonment specifications contempt. run concurrently charge. Upon imposing sentence, answered then within 60 days, while authority modify 35 inclined accept submission However, persisted refusal. 6 summary power federal courts, although arbitrary nature liable abuse, absolutely essential protection courts discharge functions. Without it, judicial tribunals mercy disorderly violent, respect neither laws enacted vindication public private rights, nor officers charged with duty administering them.' Ex parte Terry, 1888, 289, 313, 77, 83, 32 405. Judiciary 1789 contained section making explicit 'punish fine imprisonment, discretion said contempts any cause hearing before same Stat. 73, 83. United States Judge Peck's acquittal 18316 charges misdemeanors summarily punishing member bar publishing critical comment judgments, Congress modified statute. 1831, limited specific situations disobedience lawful orders. 487. See Frankfurter Landis, Power Over Procedure Contempts 'Inferior' Courts, 37 Harv.L.Rev. 1010, 1023—1038. present code provision substantially similar.7 have no doubt constituted meaning 401(3), 401(3). 7 presents issues. claims coerce into instead punish her, rather prison term after close trial violation Fifth Amendment due process. Second, argues several both 26 30 single total complete so Finally, contends one-year severe process constitute cruel unusual punishment Eighth Amendment. I. 8 While used evidence terminated, Yates v. States, 844; cf. Gompers Bucks Stove & Range Co., 1911, 221 418, 443, 449, 31 492, 498, 501, 55 797, unquestioned definite may contemnor believe review this purpose coercing answers questions. Rather, record clearly shows made 'vindicate court' 'defiance' thereof. sentencing express hope still 'purge extent bows time days thereafter. doing so, however, acted pursuant Procedure8 theory Indeed, negation latter idea, '(i)t effect proceeding need accepted purge, because fact passed administration justice affected it.' II. more related Communists, clear informer. urges completed since area 'carved out' day. From this, concludes violates guaranties. 10 A witness, course, 'pick choose' will given. management rests party can permitted usurp function. Gates, 176 78, 80. equally prosecution multiply repeated questioning subject inquiry recalcitrant witness already answers. Orman, 207 148. Even though we assume correct contention covered inquiry, appears every fell established cross-examination. admits, holding Costello, 198 200, result Mrs. flatly maintained position. deem fortiori true where draws lines less sweeping fashion declining generally defined interrogation, prosecutor area. policy law must encourage testimony; willing testify freely areas investigation one, numerous unwilling give testimony all. 12 Having once carved out refusal, remained boundaries subsequent refusals. slight modification carry beyond established. Whereas those identification. Although basis identical former, set necessarily limits drawn 26. agree shown facts That conclusion, does establish whatsoever single, continuing nature: continued witness' defiance proper authority. Certainly perform acts required mandatory injunction see meaningful distinction between persistent 14 Though there contempt, barrier served distinct purposes, coercive, punitive deterrent; act rise sanctions double jeopardy problem. Rex Trailer Co. 1956, 148, 150, 219, 220, 149; Mine Workers, 1947, 330 258, 299, 67 677, 698, 91 884.9 Clearly, simultaneously Workers holds, scarcely argued court's failure invoke sanction fatal powers. salutary procedure appear apply coercive remedies effort persuade obey orders, make use drastic when continues. Had postponed termination followed here entirely formal. III. 15 concurrent, penalty view addition, now over 70 awaiting final disposition proceedings against her. reversed, termed 'severe' 851, 855. Moreover, consider willful deliberate (and), seriousness consequences contumacious behaviour supra, page 303, 701. regard, understandable reluctance informer, legally insufficient explain factor, apparently courteous demeanor seem perceptible outcome All points up necessity, think, having reconsider cool reflection events.10 16 convictions II—XI, inclusive, reversed. specification affirmed, vacated, remanded resentencing light opinion.11 17 It ordered. Reversed part part, vacated resentencing. 19 BURTON agrees Appeals ordered least circumstances, joins remanding 20 DOUGLAS, whom CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK concur, dissenting. 21 me shocking abuse without precedent books. 22 Yates, wanting cross-examination concerning affiliations might persecution disclosure. 23 For given days.1 along line and, adhering original position, adamant answer. district told intended contempts, indicated defer action second duration (9 851) Court.2 24 First. One reason reverse transparent attempt offenses. offense Her merely maintenance position start think allowed repeating rule, believe, 204. 25 'Certainly Committee defendant prescribed But clear, punishment, ask him eliciting answer: words, testify, thereafter considered anything expressions intention adhere earlier statement separately punishable.' Or, 160. 27 seek fact, relate imposed.' 28 Any rule gives awful create crimes they choose. Because prosecutor's efforts Yates' consistently purge3 new one. 29 Second. penalties well coercion testify. Penfield California S.E.C., 585, 65 918, 1117; 884. attempted impose three-year answer; reversed necessary notice during pendency 848. What service invalid done unless fit only. 1957, 354 298, 77 1064, 1356. At morning session cases, so. ended Aug. 5, 1952. released bail pending appeal reconfined Sept. 4, 6, directing reconfinement. ended. 844. again 8, Court, day, 11, judgment, later Neither refusals, reversals, 'A punished certifies saw heard conduct constituting actual presence shall recite signed entered record.' '§ 401. discretion, authority, none other, as— '(1) Misbehavior near thereto obstruct justice; '(2) official transactions; '(3) Disobedience resistance writ, process, order, decree, command.' Stansbury, Report Trial James H. Peck (1833). note supra. 'Rule 35. Correction Reduction Sentence. reduce Nor mean also appeal, 3, event Reversal rendered uncertain date begin. Cf. Nilva 352 385, 396, 431, 437, 415. through Yates. view, 'coercive' long main appeal. (Yates 844) confinement permissible urged charge tried some judge. Offutt 348 75 99 11. contended indictment grand jury, prosecuted procedural safeguards Sixth Amendments. apparent what transpired appeared case: 'I hoped herself; prompted so.' purged.' take defendant's put.' yet herself. offering humane, merciful thing circumstances. interested imprisoning vindicating feel vindicated anyone wilfully refuses 'If Rules, wishes herself, even late court.'

Category: 0