Document: 341 U.S. 479 71 S.Ct. 814 95 L.Ed. 1118 HOFFMANv.UNITED STATES. No. 513. Argued April 25, 1951. Decided May 28, Mr. William A. Gray, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner has been convicted criminal contempt refusing to obey a federal court order requiring him answer certain questions asked in grand jury investigation. He raises here important issues as application privilege against self-incrimination under Fifth Amendment, claimed justify his refusal. 2 A special was convened at Philadelphia on September 14, 1950, investigate frauds upon Federal Government, including violations customs, narcotics and internal revenue liquor laws United States, White Slave Traffic Act, perjury, bribery, other laws, conspiracy commit all such offenses. In response subpoena petitioner appeared testify day empaneled, examined October 3. The pertinent interrogation, which he refused answer, follows: 3 'Q. What do you now, Hoffman? I refuse answer. 4 Have same undertaking since first year? don't understand question. 5 doing thing are now 6 Do know Weisberg? do. 7 How long have known him? Practically twenty years, guess. 8 When did last see 9 seen this week? 10 that issued heard about it 11 talked with telephone 12 where Weisberg is now? answer.' It stipulated declined ground answers might tend incriminate offense. 13 Petitioner's claim challenged by Government District Court Eastern Pennsylvania, found no real substantial danger incrimination ordered return stated open would not order, adjudged sentenced five months imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 401; Rule Criminal Procedure 42(a), U.S.C.A. 14 appealed Appeals Third Circuit, record docketed 11. After denial request bail pending appeal, 20 filed 'Petition Reconsideration Allowance Bail Pending Appeal,' alleging 'on basis facts contained affidavit, attached * *, justified refusal aforesaid, or, any event, there so question involved your should be released *.' accompanying affidavit asserted 15 'He assumed when before Grand Jury, both were cognizant of, took into consideration, based refusals 16 advised, after commitment, consider said relied and, contrary, considered only bare (of set out above). 17 'In interest justice particularly aid proper determination above petition, submits following support position genuinely feared propounded: '(a) This investigation stated, charge cover 'the gamut crimes covered statute.' 19 '(b) Affiant publicly charged being underworld character, racketeer year police record, prison sentence charge. '(c) Affiant, while waiting photgraphed one Joseph N. Bransky, head office States Bureau Narcotics. 21 '(d) questioned concerning whereabouts witness who had served whom bench warrant sought prosecutor. 22 'On public well within own personal knowledge, affiant avers fear Jury offense.' 23 Included appendices clippings from local newspapers, dates current grand-jury proceeding, reporting affidavit. On allowed bail. petition reconsideration allowance bail, appendices, supplemental appeal. moved strike matter properly part appeal record. 24 granted motion affirmed conviction. 185 F.2d 617, 620. With respect regarding Weisberg, held unanimously relationship between possible admissions proscription (pertinent statutes (18 §§ 371, 1501)) need much closer us conclude answering.' As petitioner's business, observed 'It quite apparent appellant could shown beyond fanciful.' court's view data submitted 'would rather clearly adequate establish circumstantially likelihood appellant's assertion mere contumacy.' But concluded, again unanimously, information offered 'was contempt, therefore cannot now.' Thus limited originally filed, majority opinion, business questions, failed give judge allow latter rule intelligently simply say anything gave show why anything.' One dissented, concluding knew setting controversy' 'a racketeering crime vicinity' 'should adverted fact common knowledge exists class persons live activity prohibited some these summoned witnesses investigation.' unsuccessfully rehearing Appeals, urging remand permit conviction We certiorari, 1951, 340 946, 532. 25 another proceedings during present Term each course investigations.* number similar cases recently lower courts. signal increase litigation emphasizes continuing necessity prosecutors courts alike 'alert repress' abuses investigatory power invoked, bearing mind juries 'may proceed, either their or examination witnesses, imquire whether cognizable committed', Hale v. Henkel, 1906, 201 43, 65, 26 370, 375, 50 652, yet most valuable function (has been) examine commission crimes, but stand prosecutor accused,' id., page 59, 373, 652. Enforcement officials taking initiative grnad-jury superintendence sensitive considerations making wise exercise power, constitutional may also noncoercive assistance agencies render unnecessary invoke compulsive process jury. Amendment declares 'No person shall compelled Case himself'. guarantee testimonial compulsion, like provisions Bill Rights, added original Constitution too high price paid even unhampered enforcement law that, its attainment, social objects free society sacrificed.' Feldman 1944, 322 487, 489, 64 1082, 1083, 88 1408. provision must accorded liberal construction favor right intended secure. Counselman Hitchcock, 1892, 142 547, 562, 195, 197, 35 1110; Arndstein McCarthy, 1920, 254 71, 72 73, 41 26, 65 138. 27 afforded extends themselves statute likewise embraces those furnish link chain evidence needed prosecute claimant crime. (Patricia) Blau 159, 223. protection confined instances reasonable cause apprehend direct Mason 1917, 244 362, 365, 37 621, 622, 61 1198, cited. exonerated answering merely because himself—his say-so does itself hazard incrimination. silence justified, Rogers 367, 438, require if 'it appears mistaken.' Temple Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. However, witness, interposing claim, required prove sense usually established court, surrender very designed guarantee. To sustain privilege, evident implications question, asked, responsive an explanation answered dangerous injurious disclosure result. trial appraising 'must governed perception peculiarities case actually evidence.' See Taft, J., Ex parte Irvine, C.C.S.D.Ohio, 1896, 74 954, 960. 28 circumstances ruling privilege? background indicated record: 29 ruled himself impaneled 'rackets' district. explained Attorney General's come district conduct (that) will run 'If rackets infest encrust our system government,' instructed, 'just blight attacks growth, withers dies. *' Subpoenas eleven served; put it, 'having trouble finding big shots.' Several appear called room until court. requested warrants eight nine session, Weisberg. admitted having years. addition, counsel advised broadly published (petitioner) record.' 30 considered, connection chief occupation involves evasion truthful disclosed engaged proscribed activity. 31 Also, recognized, considering investigating hiding helping hide questionable repute witness. sure, inquire unlocated witnesses; ordinarily harmless fruitless. seven relating three answered), draw contacts fugitive witness; final perhaps afterthought prosecutor, inquired Weisberg's time. All them easily forge links imperiling affirmatively, crucial period eluding jury; context inquiries away premises assistance. reasonably sensed peril prosecution offenses ranging obstruction conspiracy. 32 'perfectly clear, careful consideration case, mistaken, answer(s) possibly tendency' incriminate. 898, cited approval 579— 580, 204, 1110. also, 33 conclusion buttressed showed twenty-year labeled 'underworld character racketeer'; Senate Crime Investigating Committee placed name list 'known gangsters' area made Miami Beach headquarter; described king shore lives gun'; charge; previous dramatized picture appearing press testify, photographed Narcotics accusing pose. 34 comprised though captioned terms vacate grounds, alternatively second Clearly two weeks directed committing discharge contemnor good cause—a solicitous objections renewed. Cf. Gouled 1921, 255 298, 261, 647. ends whenever sufficient privilege. Accordingly Appeals. For reasons we agree judgments below. If result adds burden diligence efficiency resting authorities, seriously compromise liberty. 'The immediate potential evils compulsory self-disclosure transcend difficulties impose detection crime.' White, 694, 698, 1248, 1251, 1542. Pertinent observation Brandeis McCarthy Arndstein, 1924, 266 34, 42, 45 16, 17, 69 158. Congress hereafter full greater importance than possibility punishing past, can, cases, confer unrestricted providing complete immunity.' 36 Reversed. REED dissents. agrees conclusions reached Judges Goodrich Kalodner expressed 223; (Irving) 332, 301; 438; Greenberg Cir., 187 35, 37, writ certiorari pending. (See 944, 1013.)

Category: 0