Document: 340 U.S. 367 71 S.Ct. 438 95 L.Ed. 344 ROGERSv.UNITED STATES. No. 20. Argued Nov. 7, 1950. Decided Feb. 26, 1951. Rehearing Denied April 16, See 341 912, 619. Mr. Samuel D. Menin, Denver, Colo., for petitioners. Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case arises out an investigation by regularly convened grand jury United States District Court Colorado. The books and records Communist Party Denver were sought as necessary to that inquiry subject questioning jury. In September, 1948, petitioner, in response a subpoena, appeared before She testified she held position Treasurer until January, that, virtue her office, had been possession membership lists dues Party. Petitioner denied having turned them over another. But refused identify person whom given Party's books, stating court only reason: 'I don't feel I should or persons same thing I'm going through.'1 thereupon committed petitioner custody marshal ten o'clock next morning, expressly advising right consult with counsel.2 2 day, counsel informed he read transcript prior day's proceedings upon his advice, would answer questions purge herself contempt.3 However, reappearing jury, again question. following day was brought into court. Called district judge immediately after heard oral argument concerning privilege against self-incrimination another case, repeated refusal question, asserting this time self-incrimination.4 After ruling not privileged, imposed sentence four months contempt. Appeals Tenth Circuit affirmed, 1950, 179 F.2d 559, we granted certiorari, 339 956, 70 978. 3 If desired protection self-incrimination, required claim it. v. Monia, 1943, 317 424, 427, 63 409, 410, 87 376. 'is deemed waived unless invoked.' Murdock, 1931, 284 141, 148, 52 63, 64, 76 210.5 Furthermore, decisions are explicit holding solely benefit witness,'6 purely personal witness.'7 placed original declination on untenable ground, since cannot be justified desire protect others from punishment,8 much less interrogation Petitioner's pure afterthought. Although made at second presence court, it came voluntarily status officer Denver. To uphold open way distortion facts permitting witness select any stopping place testimony. 4 even if claimed question name asked, justify answer. As preliminary matter, note no respect Party, whether corporation9 unincorporated association.10 Books kept 'in representative rather than capacity though production papers might tend incriminate (their keeper) personally.' White, 1944, 322 694, 699, 64 1248, 1251, 88 1542.11 Since petitioner's asserted relation reversal conviction rests ground mere disclosure recipient tends incriminate. 5 Blau States, 159, 223, connections calling tending criminate under Smith Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2386.12 stands entirely different footing, freely described membership, activities office presupposes real danger legal detriment arising disclosure, invoke where specific issue here further her. Disclosure fact waives details. stated Brown Walker, 1896, 161 591, 597, 16 644, 647, 40 819: 'Thus, himself elects waive privilege, may doubtless do, is other parties, discloses criminal connections, permitted stop, but must go make full disclosure.'13 6 Following rule, federal courts have uniformly criminating revealed, invoked avoid details.14 Arndstein McCarthy, 1920, 254 71, 41 65 138, McCarthy Arndstein, 1923, 262 355, 43 562, 67 1023, support for, sustaining each appeal, stressed absence previous 'admission guilt incriminating facts,'15 relied particularly supra, Foster People, 1869, Mich. 266. Michigan apposite here: '(W)here has voluntarly answered materially facts, uniformity then stop short refuse explanation, disclose fully what attempted relate.' page 276.16 7 Requiring details testifies does rest 'waiver' self-incrimination. Admittedly, already 'waived' silence when relating connection asked furnish records, determine, whenever claimed, presented reasonable crimination light all circumstances, including disclosures. which directed, determine particular 'real danger' crimination.17 admission acquaintance successor presents more 'mere imaginary possibility'18 increasing prosecution.19 8 contention conceding voluntary one element proof Act violation, crime conspiracy violate Act. Our 161, 224, explicitly rejects its both 'violation (or violate) Act.' Of course, least two constitute conspiracy, identity members needed, inasmuch can convicted conspiring whose names unknown.20 9 Affirmed. 10 CLARK took part consideration decision case. 11 BLACK, FRANKFURTER DOUGLAS concur, dissenting. 12 Some people hostile Fifth Amendment's provision unequivocally commanding official shall compel himself. They consider provisions outmoded relic past fears generated ancient inquisitorial practices could possibly happen here. For reason provilege silent sometimes accepted being constitutional nuisance abate however possible. Such end achieved obvious judicial techniques: (1) narrow construction scope privilege; (2) broad doctrine 'waiver.' Any attempt use first these methods, however, runs afoul approximately 150 years precedent. cases there cited. almost always construed Amendment broadly1 view compelling convict 'contrary principles free government' 'abhorrent instincts American'; while such coercive practice 'may suit purposes despotic power * abide atmosphere political liberty freedom.' Boyd 116 616, 632, 524, 533, 29 746; cf. 210. 13 waiver seems palatable equally effective device whittling away afforded although think today's application supported our decisions. never doubted intentionally relinquished intention found 'course conduct.' Shepard Barron, 194 553, 568, 24 737, 742, 48 1115. said 'lightly inferred' vague uncertain evidence will finding waiver. 337 137, 150, 69 1000, 1007, 93 1264, relying Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 82 1461, intended give up records. contrary, record—as set Court's opinion—shows answering whatever available moment became aware existence.2 crucial ignored today. 14 Apparently, some point testimony, regardless intention, associations automatically effected related questions.3 adopt rule safeguards knowingly waived, relegates second-rate position. Moreover, creates dilemma witnesses: On hand, they risk imprisonment contempt prematurely; other, lose single makes depend timing so refined lawyers, let alone laymen, difficulty knowing it.4 very occurred trial anything.5 And testimony circumstances work waiver, did do because 'standing amount clear *.' 72, 138.6 15 unlike Court, believe call additional information. Her anser relevant future prosecution violation also witnesses thus identify. reasons highest degree. Certainly say '(could not) used basis aid of, 819.7 companion cases8 reveal flagrant disregard privileges called Special Attorney charge unwarranted assurances well misled unable match wits him making self-incriminating admissions.9 allowed counsel, final arbitrarily permit speak behalf, summarily attorney sit down, thereafter sentenced months' imprisonment.10 convicting her, neither nor intimated waived.11 His erroneous belief intimate association fact. Therefore, now describes 'afterthought,' me affirmance judgment below equivalent theory. More important, expansion improperly limits great safeguards.12 17 reverse conviction. APPENDIX. 19 review entered: 20 'The Court: What case? Can dispose ladies now? 21 'Mr. Goldschein (Special Attorney): Mrs. Jane Rogers. 22 Is here? 23 Goldschein: here, yes, sir. Now, please Your Honor— Step madam. 25 Rogers refuses propounded room. back yesterday, says others, advised except those offense, won't any. 26 your position, madam? 27 Menin (counsel petitioner): misunderstanding. 28 Just minute. Will you seated, Menin? Please seated. Menin: Well, represent lady. 30 moment. 31 Very well. 32 I'll hear due course(.) Madam, still persist questions? 33 'Mrs. Rogers: Menin's statements morning— 34 yes no? 35 that's undemocratic(.) honest person. Would mind letting consider— 36 Make statement wish. 37 before, acquainted tricks procedure, understand reading morning am—and questions, me, yourself, decide that. 38 You say. 39 According read, do. stand All right. changes, confined General months. Call case.' Transcript Record, pp. 76—78 (September 23, 1948). Transcript, p. 21, 1948): question? Who new? gave January year? Do care not. What? not, told them. Why answer? through. It order questions. Now that? No.' detained tomorrow tne o'clock. meantime, hearing between then? Yes, time. Get bring want to, spend night jail, afraid.' 43, 49 22, (After entering appearance behalf regard Rogers, I've transpired yesterday; my advice her.' then, return Grand Jury room purges contempt, bringing matter discharged. remain custody.' 'No compelled U.S.Const. Amend. V. leading appear 77—78 undemocratic. Citing ex rel. Vajtauer Commissioner Immigration, 1927, 273 103, 113, 47 302, 306, 560. 1949, 147, 1005, 1264; Corwin, Supreme Construction Self-Incrimination Clause, L.Rev. 1, 198—199 (1930). Hale Henkel, 1906, 201 69, 370, 376, 50 652; McAlister 90, 91, 385, 671. 609, 651, 819; 69—70, 377, 652. Wilson 1911, 221 361, 538, 55 771; Wheeler 1913, 226 478, 158, 57 309; Grant 227 74, 190, 423; Essgee Co. 151, 514, 917. 1928, 276 134, 288, 72 500; 1542. Cf. Fleischman, 349, 358, 739, 744. cited notes 8, supra. attach organization, 'required records' type considered Shapiro 335 68 1375, 92 1787. Membership itself, asked. Congress provided, Internal Security Sept. Stat. 987, 992, 4(f), 783(f), 'Neither organization per se (of Act) statute.' We, express implications legislation issues cases. Quoted approval Powers 1912, 223 303, 314, 281, 283, 56 448. St. Pierre, Cir., 1942, 132 837, 147 A.L.R. 240; Brckeye Powder Hazard Co., D.C.Conn., 205 F. 827, 829. 359, 563, 1023 (emphasis supplied). appeals, like present arose involuntary examination. reserved, problems possible abuse adversary proceedings. Compare state collected 255 (1943). VIII Wigmore, Evidence (1940) 2276, quotes 266, authoritative summarizes law follows: ordinary hardly doubt. He conceded. exercising option answering; Thus whether, X, Y. parts whole forming topic, remaining parts; exists sake whole.' (Emphasis original.) Heike 131, 144, 226, 228, 450; 600, 648, 819. Mason 1917, 244 362, 366, 621, 622, 61 1198. 1942. 240, closer 'detail' Pierre divulge without crime. pass precise factual decided Appeals. Browne 1905, 145 13; Donegan 1922, 287 641, 648; Pomerantz 51 911, 913; Grove 1925, 965, 967; McDonald 506, 507; Rosenthal 1930, 45 1003, 78 1415; Didenti 44 537, 538. Feder 1919, 257 697; Worthington 1933, 936, 939. 'This (against self-incrimination) favor secure.' Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 197, 198, 1110. While failure specifically constituted 560; 210, controlling Before entered law, standing ground. Appendix opinion, 381, 446. reliance 819, indicating unintentionally misplaced. 'if disclosure.' supplied.) practical difficulties inherent announced apparent opinions 240. accompanying text, infra. Today's seeks derive looser test certain negative language subsequent 'the actual deprived quoted minimum previously announced. 1023. why said: 'And find none answers either denials partial disclosures, amounted showing guilt, entitled decline him.' pages 359 360, 563—564, suggested adopted cited, acceptance majority That quotation shown English Regina Garbett, C. & K. 474, 495, summarized following: '(I)t difference part, 'being stage inquiry." rely 'Petitioner course turn unprivileged documents possession. intend suggest privileged refusing merely relate documents, inconsistent recent unanimous 223. supra; 332, 301. upheld convictions most comment conduct Attorney: '(His) stock proceeding warranted. jury's was; substitute protection.' 563. Other 'irregularities' pointed out. 561. Conduct prosecutor during similar Los Angeles criticized judges Ninth Alexander 181 480. There government 'pursued tactics put guard 482. portion Appendix. judge's sole reference petitioner. addressing witnesses, said, 'Of anything testify signed can't hereafter. That's isn't it?' witness, Nancy Wertheimer, reversed 559. description abuses led incorporation Bill Rights, see Pittman, Colonial Constitutional History Privilege Against America, Va.L.Rev. 763.

Category: 0