Document: 382 U.S. 162 86 S.Ct. 352 15 L.Ed.2d 240 Al HARRIS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 6. Argued Oct. 11, 12, 1965. Decided Dec. 6, Ronald L. Goldfarb, Alexandria, Va., for petitioner. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case brings back to us a question resolved by closely divided Court in Brown v. United States, 359 41, 79 539, 3 609, concerning respective scope Rule 42(a) and 42(b) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure. Petitioner was witness before grand jury refused answer certain questions on ground self-incrimination. He were brought District which directed him propounded jury, stating that petitioner would receive immunity from prosecution. again give any answers jury. thereupon sworn. The repeated answer, but he privilege. prosecution at once requested be found contempt court 'under 42(a).' Counsel protested an adjournment public hearing where permitted call witnesses. denied motion adjudged guilty criminal contempt, imposing sentence one year's imprisonment.1 Appeals af>>firmed, 334 F.2d 460. We granted certiorari, 379 944, 85 438, 13 542. 2 is entitled 'Summary Disposition' reads as follows: 'A may punished summarily if judge certifies saw or heard conduct constituting it committed actual presence court. order shall recite facts signed entered record.' 4 reserved 'for exceptional circumstances,' 54, 548 (dissenting opinion), such acts threatening disrupting obstructing proceedings. Ibid. reach conclusion light 'the concern long demonstrated both Congress this over possible abuse power,' ibid., wording Rule. Summary 'misbehavior' (Ex parte Terry, 128 289, 314, 9 77, 83, 32 L.Ed. 405) 'actual Court.' Then speedy punishment necessary achieve 'summary vindication court's dignity authority' Cooke 267 517, 534, 45 390, 394, 69 767. But swiftness not prerequisite justice here. Delay imperil 5 Cases kind involved here are foreign 42(a). real there was, jury—the refusal when Swearing repeating effort have testify 'committed court' purposes It served no other purpose, had been adamant made his position known. appearance new different proceeding, unrelated other. ancillary designed aid it. Even though we assume arguendo times testimonial episodes, nothing indicates petitioner's open, serious threat orderly procedure instant summary punishment, distinguished due deliberate procedures (Cooke supra, 536, 394), necessary. procedure, use words Chief Taft, fill need immediate penal court.' start premise ago stated Anderson Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231, 242, limits power punish '(t)he least adequate end proposed.'2 In case, being affronted: disturbance quelled; insolent tactics stopped. far outside narrow category envisioned 42(a).3 provides normal procedure. reads: 7 except provided subdivision (a) rule prosecuted notice. notice state time place hearing, allowing reasonable preparation defense, essential charged describe such. given orally open defendant or, application States attorney appointed show cause arrest. trial act so provides. admission bail these rules. If involves disrespect criticism judge, disqualified presiding with defendant's consent. Upon verdict finding guilt enter fixing punishment.' 8 Such serve important ends. What appears brazen cooperate indeed frightened silence. Refusal fear reprisals family. Other extenuating circumstances present.4 do suggest nature wholly ignorant episode what record shows reveals only barebones demand refusal. done, sentencing should know all facts. can imagine situations inconsequential reprisal great nominal any, indicated. Our point will elucidate assure fair administration justice. courts surmise suspicion come stage proceeding insight understanding. concerned solely 'procedural regularity' which, Brandeis said Burdeau McDowell, 256 465, 477, 41 574, 576, 65 1048 (dissenting), has 'a large factor' development our liberty. prescribes contempts federal regime5 those unusual action protect judicial institution itself. 10 overrule reverse remand proceedings under 42(b). 11 Reversed remanded. 12 STEWART, whom CLARK, HARLAN, WHITE join, dissenting. issue followed after ordered district issue, involving Procedure, says, 609.1 That six years ago. Since then changes 42(b).2 today overturned, 'resolved' now answered opposite way. 14 particular limited importance. area Court's duty important, does responsibility clear consistent guidance judiciary rules own making. faithful duty, I think, overturn settled construction better reasons than offered case.3 present record. A Southern New York investigating alleged violations Communications Act 1934.4 appeared pursuant subpoena. number about interstate telephone upon self-incrimination § 409(l) Act.5 Only giving lawyer full opportunity did Judge clothed complete constitutional self-incrimination, direct jury's questions. returned room questions, disobedience Judge's order. 16 common ground, suppose, court.6 obey judge's occur within sight could initiated fully consonant decision Brown,7 'more intent punishing aiding its investigation might well taken just course.' U.S., 50, S.Ct., 546. required prove testimony stenographer, imposed sentence. often followed.8 17 Instead, however, alternative approved Brown. last gave final chance purge himself contempt. court.9 After sworn witness, same answer. At questioning asked, 'Does anybody want say anything further?' response counsel, later,10 brief renewal attack purpose conferred petitioner—legal had, determined first place. 18 precise conformity longsettled consistently practice.11 context, proceeding. petitioner, represented accorded additional contempt; counsel offer explanation they extenuation contempt—to inform 'sentencing facts.' And finally, reason obduracy likely more severe Indeed, recent cases referred indicate contrary.12 reviewable appeal either case,13 exercise reviewing appellate information go 19 For affirm judgment Appeals. 'The Court: Anything further? 'Mr. Maloney: No, your Honor. 'I think speaks itself, ask Honor find Polakoff: Your Honor, respectfully request adjournment. minutes discuss them consider my client look up law. further request, witnesses, perhaps juror two more; places phone calls allegedly indicated assistant, violation Act. told tariff violated; law cited regulation me, requires research. also held public. denied. court, adjudge see Nye 313 33, 52—53, 61 810, 817—818, 1172; re Michael, 326 224, 227, 66 78, 79, 90 30; Cammer 350 399, 404, 76 456, 458, 100 474. described Advisory Committee 'substantially restatement existing Ex 289 (9 405); * *.' confirmed occasion, e.g., Offutt 348 13—14, 75 99 11; 51, 547. Taft 537, 395: 'Due process law, therefore, accused advised charges meet way defense explanation. includes assistance requested, right witnesses testimony, relevant exculpation offense mitigation penalty imposed.' instance York, comes, hearings E.g., Castaldi, 338 883; Tramunti, 343 548; Shillitani, 345 290; Pappadio, 346 5. There indication impeded functioning reaffirmed Levine 362 610, 80 1038, 989. proposed amendments Procedure Courts, September 22—23, 1965, Judicial Conference make No argumentation factual data contained revealed dissenting Brown, 53—63, 553, passim, considered there. Nor suggested proved unclear difficult application. considerations attending overruling quite unlike occurred Swift & Co., Inc. Wickham, 111, 258, changed procedural unworkable practice. 48 Stat. 1070 1100, 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(c) 501, (1964 ed.), 1952 ed.). 1096, prevailing without itself compel summons attend must testify, if, appearing, refuses so. 'When return order, unquestionably properly initiated. take thus known taking evidence, conducted See Carlson 209 209, 216 (C.A.1st Cir.).' note opinion, p. 167. 'opened proclamation.' Before sentence, still another obduracy: already perfectly clear, again: you ruling cannot case. Do refuse, Harris? Witness: refuse grounds tend incriminate me. See, addition 989; Rogers 340 367, 71 95 344; Wilson 221 361, 369, 31 538, 55 771; Hale Henkel, 201 43, 46, 26 370, 372, 50 652; Curcio, 234 470, 473 (C.A.2d Cir.), rev'd grounds, 354 118, 77 1145, 1225 (1957); Lopiparo 87 (C.A.8th Cir.); Weinberg, 396 Cir.). earlier practice People ex rel. Phelps Fancher, Thompson Cook 467 (N.Y.1874); Hackley Kelly, 24 N.Y. 74, 79—80 (1861); Harris, Utah 5, 8—9, P. 129, 130—132 (1884); Heard Pierce, Cush. 338, 342—345, 62 Mass. 342 (1851). 883 (two years); (one year); 290 Papadio, years). Green 356 165, 188, 78 632, 645, 672; Yates 363, 766, 837; Nilva 385, 396, 431, 437—438, 415; 52, 547, 609.

Category: 0