Document: 333 U.S. 257 68 S.Ct. 499 92 L.Ed. 682 In re OLIVER. No. 215. Argued Dec. 11, 1947. Decided March 8, 1948. Messrs. William Henry Gallagher, of Detroit, Mich., and Osmond K. Fraenkel, for petitioner. Mr. Edumund E. Shepherd, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 A Michigan circuit judge summarily sent petitioner to jail contempt court. We must determine whether he was denied procedural due process guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment. 2 obedience a subpoena appeared as witness before who then conducting, in accordance with law, 'one-man grand jury' investigation into alleged gambling official corruption. The presumably took place judge's chambers, though that is not certain. Two other judges were present an advisory capacity.1 prosecutor may have been present. stenographer most likely there. record does show what members, if any, investigatorial staff participated proceedings. It certain, however, public excluded—the questioning secret traditional jury method. 3 After had given certain testimony, judge-grand jury, still session, told neither nor his advisors believed petitioner's story—that it did 'jell.' This belief based entirely on testified. As will later be seen, rested part beliefs or suspicions judge-jury derived from testimony at least one previously evidence secret. Petitioner when testified so far appears even aware Based its thus formed—that story 'jell'—the immediately charged him contempt, convicted him, sentenced sixty days jail. Under these circumstances haste secrecy, petitioner, course, no chance enjoy benefits counsel, prepare defense, opportunity either cross examine summon witnesses refute charge against him. 4 Three lawyer filed behalf Supreme Court petition habeas corpus now under consideration. among things attorney allowed confer that, best attorney's knowledge, held any judgment, decree execution, 'not confined virtue legal commitment directed sheriff required law.' An order entered signed while 'sitting One-Man Grand Jury' court because 'evasively' 'contradictory answers' questions. 'be county * period until such time shall appear answer questions heretofore propounded this *.' 5 Michigan, grounds detailed companion case Petition Dohany (In Hartley), 317 Mich. 441, 27 N.W.2d 48,2 rejected contention summary manner which secrecy chamber depi ved liberty without affording kind notice, defend himself, trial clause Amendment requires.3 (Ex Parte Oliver), 318 7, 323. granted certiorari, 332 755, 76, consider 6 requires brief explanation Michigan's unique one-man system.4 That state's first constitution (1835), like Fifth Federal Constitution, criminal prosecutions begun presentment indictment jury. Art. I, § 11. compulsory provision left out 1850 (1908). However, their discretion juries, but we are general rarely exercised 'One-Man has taken old 16 23-member particularly probes misconduct officials. 7 law passed 1917 following recommendation State Bar Association interest more rigorous enforcement, greater emphasis should put upon 'investigative procedure' 'probing' 'detecting' crime.5 With need uppermost thinking recommended bill provided justices peace vested inquisitorial powers traditionally conferred only coroners juries. imposed investigatory peace, police courts well. Mich.Laws 1917, Act 196. 8 Whenever appear, duty go all material do incriminate Should fail questions, believe false evasive, deliberately contradit ory, found guilty contempt. offense punishable fine than $100, imprisonment exceeding days, both, If after having satisfactorily answers judge-jury, sentence may, within judge-jury's discretion, commuted suspended. At end can resummoned subjected same inquiries. again contradictory, serve unless reappears during second 60-day decides commute suspend sentence.6 9 carrying authority judgegrand authorized appoint own prosecutors, detectives aides expense,7 whom justice judge, admitted inquiry. Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.944 (Henderson 1938). Comp.Laws 1929, 17218. asked subjects advised privilege self-incrimination, secret.8 And interrogations carried day night, 'hideout,' courthouse, office building, hotel room, home, business; well ambulatory power understood also popularly referred 'portable jury.'9 10 corpus. contained fragments apparently stenographic transcript stated, 'Grand concluded 'false evasive.' verified motion seeking complete produced hearing. He full report would disclose freely, promptly, ability, answered asked, evasively falsely. deny allegations. asserted original showed 'all Jury necessary proceeding' 'the disclosure seriously retard activities.' motion. Thus dismissed seen copy portion 11 here challenge constitutional grant single therefore concern ourselves question. long recognized country however traditionl 12 juries sessions. Oaths ordinarily both members them. Many reasons advanced support secrecy. See, e.g., Hale v. Henkel, 201 43, 58—66, 26 370, 372-375, 50 652; Branch, N.C. 186, Am.Rep. 633. But those never thought justify accused violation fined investigate, usual report, 'no-bill' indictment. They try they convict. render judgment. When work finished return indictment, cannot used person indicted. Nor tried afforded safeguards law. Even refuse proper adjudge all.10 Witnesses testify charges sitting open acting be, holds, judicial nature,11 apply effect investigation, quite different suddenly makes defendant case. Here concerned, rights proceeding. evasive swearing likewise measured, limitations applicable proceedings, standards proceedings both. our question this: Can secrecy? 13 First. Counsel cited unable find instance conducted camera federal,12 state, municipal history country. England since abolition Star Chamber 1641, ever people secretly dispute. Summary trials called court13 regarded exception universal rule trials, some represent exception. 14 nation's accepted practice guaranteeing roots English common heritage. exact date origin obscure, evolved settlement land accompaniment ancient institution trial.14 guarantee right state 1776.15 Following ratification 1791 Constitution's Sixth Amendment, commands 'In prosecutions, speedy *' states subsequently Union adopted similar provisions.16 Today almost exception17 every constitution18 statute,19 decision,20 public. 15 Anglo-American distrust variously ascribed notorious use Spanish Inquisition,21 excesses Chamber,22 French monarchy's abuse lettre de cachet.23 All institutions obviously symbolized menace liberty. hands despotic groups each them become instrument suppression political religious heresies ruthless disregard fair trial. Whatever society,24 always safeguard attempt employ instruments persecution. knowledge subject contemporaneous review forum effective restraint possible power.25 One wholly agree statement made Jeremy Bentham over 120 years ago appreciate fear felt predecessors contemporaries. said: '* suppose completely secret, court, occasion, consist judge,—that once indolent arbitrary: how corrupt soever inclination check, rate tolerably efficient oppose it. Without publicity, checks insufficient: comparison small account. Recordation, appeal, whatever might themselves character checks, operate rather cloaks checks; reality, appearance.'26 giving content statutory trial, e deral differed spectators, could properly excluded trial.27 But, cases, held, find, tried, convicted, jail, everybody else entrance except attaches.28 very entitled friends, relatives counsel present, matter charged.29 Gaines Washington, 277 81, 85, 86, 48 468—470, 72 793, assumed violate requirements Amendment's clause, although actual holding there fact occurred, court's barring enforced. Certain including convictions occasionally countenanced courts,30 intimation public, accused's relatives, barred chamber. 17 us, conducting investigation. midst abruptly changed. became 'trial,' court—all charge, conviction sentence, led away prison—still break according undenied allegations, see His there, mantle enveloped transaction ordered back knowing chambers. viewo f historic inherent dangers freedom, requirement federal governments deprived means prison. 18 Second. further hold failure afford reasonable himself denial person's notice heard defense—a court—are basic system jurisprudence; include, minimum, offer represented counsel.31 denying existence cases generally, concedes nature namely, committed, urges, presence. 19 true punish conduct committed Ex parte Terry, 128 289, 77, 32 405, There Terry assault marshal moment removing heckler courtroom. 'violence misconduct' marshal's assailant occurred 'personal view' 'under eye,' actually interrupted cause way. offender once, hearing, offense. reached conclusion business suppress disturbances courtroom immediate punishment. departure capable grave abuses, reason gave encouragement expansion beyond punishment court-disrupting alone justified exercise. Indeed approval decision Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 242, marked limits being adequate proposed.' Id., page 231 Michael, 326 224, 227, 66 78, 79, 90 30. 20 considered unlimited abandonment safeguards, spelled emphatic language Cooke United States, 267 517, 45 390, 69 767, arising district pointed exercise extraordinary narrowly limited heard, court-disturbing occur presence, personal acquired observation contemptuous condut . said others, confession accused, defense. Furthermore, explained reaching created 'an threat orderly procedure flagrant defiance presence public' instantly suppressed punished, demoralization follow.' 536 U.S., pages 394, 395 21 Except category contempts, meet way defense explanation, call behalf, explanation. narrow includes misconduct, disturbs business, where essential elements eye observed prevent 'demoralization public.' personally depend statements others about elements, requires, case, accorded hearing above set out. 22 facts shown outside punished counsel. Since possibility falsely based, part, Hartley day; pin-ball machine operators; bought possession so-called bonds purchased Mitchell; day. 48. pressed why patently worthless. repeatedly done worthless bonds. fragmentary portions reported Court, included opinion. steadfastly knew precisely bonds, several disposed them, thrown wastebasket, trash can, burned 23 upholding jury's evasively, majority 'That Jury, satisfied sold Carman A. Mitchell D. Oliver Leo Thomas Hartley.' Nothing remotely drawing conclusion. appraising truth Oliver's light absence possibly othe witnesses. provide sustaining absence. witnessed Terry's nevertheless conceivable, urged, correctly detect falsity evasiveness simply listening testify. plainly finding power. For pass argued briefs consistently process, convict testifying solely ability merely observing 24 suggested authority' resulted perjury contempts.32 followed recalcitrant take practice, consistent demoralized courts. Reported reveal instances basis perjurers, perjury, specific obtain cross-examine condemned too valuable whittled guise authority.' 25 land' man's life, property forfeited fairly tribunal. See Chambers v Florida, 309 236, 237, 60 472, 477, 84 716. judgment reversed remanded disposition inconsistent Reversed remanded. 28 RUTLEDGE, concurring. 29 I join Court's decision. needs said. 30 exemplified record, combines historically separate committing magistrate, prosecutor, petit aggregated denies protections secured 'to informed accusation;1 confronted him;2 obtaining favor, Assistance defence.' takes security twice jeopardy offense3 equal protection laws leaving functionary's sole scope contents appeal.4 U.S.Const.Amends. V. XIV. 31 aggregation inherently concomitant freedoms unknown crystallized Constitution. altogether variance tradition government. stand test constitutionaliy purposes depriving property. semblance scheme ends.5 demonstrates departed plan when, adoption, permitted selective established Bill Rights.6 permitting experiment improving administration justice, free substitute, 'in spite absolutism continental governments,' 'ideas processes civil justice' time-tried 'principles law'7 perpetuated us Rights. Only freedom enabled adopt her offspring Hurtado California, 110 516, 111, 232, cases.8 33 So stand, Rights strait jacket Eighteenth Century procedures charter liberty, experimentations expected states. check effectiveness agreement violates fundamental notions civilized society. 34 conceive Rights, apart incorporates ideas. provisions go, know better substitutes. few inconvenient. restrictions securing fairness deprive it, inconvenient—to restricted. times think substitutions imported systems, ones, promise whole improvement harm, perfecting perpetuating individual main society 35 attribute collapse Europe elsewhere recent prevailing nations suffered loss. Neither denyt significance contrast between success maintaining systems adhered closely secures. experience demonstrates, think, wiser safer up inconveniences creates run risk losing hard-won guaranties dubious, convenient alien traditions.9 36 survived nation through great vicissitudes, history, wide departures numerous ones ratified amendments. themselves, my opinion, Adamson 46, dissenting opinions, 68, 123, 67 1672, 1683, 1684, 171 A.L.R. 1223. good enough fathers. 37 Room toward justice. Within laboratory excursions, constitutionally liberties. carries dilution chances enforcing strengthening. 38 remains say face broad many or, view control, aggregate summarized concept representing ideas play society, presents, eyes remain closed hand idle returned supreme reaffirmation position confirmation views expressed Rescue Army Municipal 331 549, 1409, Musser Utah, 95, 397, presented situation tendered here, relation disentanglement issues consequently, respect breadth clarity commands. justifies followed. unripe wanting sufficient function. FRAK FURTER: 39 surely method prosecuting crime nearly half States amendment. so, abolish jury,1 reduce size member. leeway devising probing charging commission crime. time, surround preliminary inquiry detected criminals sifted injure embarrass innocent. 40 Flouting prevented hitherto valid must, recalcitrance, withheld, actively blocked. Hudgings, 249 378, 337, 63 656, 333. 'due process' observed. Due indispensable. involves canvass behind doors. man ample demonstrate innocence hustled off complain fit devise new satisfying opportunity. Just violative private leave stage vindication compensation, seem me allow juror familiar furnishes tribunal quit finding. 41 fair, contest validity comes handicapped resisting. 42 dealing seventh largest population curb mitigate ofc rimes prosecution. operation thirty years. heedlessly sporadically pursued. series sanction highest Michigan. While indications infer inadequacy pursued decide conclude offends Constitution clearer formulation happens system, happen reveals. 43 significant precise explicitly challenged before, on, adjudicated controversies system. consonant delicate relations fullest opportunity, presentation issues, make unconstitutionality. 44 instance, regard inadmissible partial mutilated juror-judge contemnor accusation publicly, seems repel suggestion complaint.2 Certainly, JACKSON points out, ground inviting here. concluding conjunction enable issues. JACKSON, FRANKFURTER agrees, dissenting. 46 principal assigned reversal procedure. certiorari raised writ Therefore, litigated reference On hand, decided 47 below, upon, remand consideration, just 397. permits sit capacity. 27.188 1938), Mich.Comp.Laws 13666. rejecting contentions, 'idle gesture require adjournment reconvening appropriate impose forthwith. 'Plaintiff's extraneous proofs occurrence. direct was, therefore, necessity filing charges, 13912, Stat.Ann. 27.513. dealt summarily. §§ 13910, 13911, 27.511, 27.512.' 444, 445, 50. By four vote 'evidence finding' shred conceivably supported unnecessary contention. authorizing 17217 et seq., 28.943 seq. ten states' statutes similarities Winters, J.Am.Jud.Soc. 137. Conn.Gen.Stat. 889f (Supp.1941); McCarthy Clancy, Conn. 482, 148 551; Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 37, 83; 951; Ballew, Okl.Cr. 105, P. 525. Proceedings Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting 101—105 (1916). Ward, 295 742, 747, N.W. 483, 485. (First May 31, 1940, July 29, 1940. $100 instance.) Investigation Recount, 270 328, 331, 258 776, 777; Slattery, 310 458, 479, 251, 259. People Wolfson, 264 409, 413, 250 260, 262; Watson, 293 263, 269, 291 652, 655; Butler, 221 626, 631, 632, 192 685, 687. 137, 143; Unprecedented Success Criminal Courts, 42—43. collected 1579—1580; Orfield, Procedure Arrest Appeal 161 (1947). 466—468, 254 255; Kloka Brake Treasurer, 87, 90, 507, 508; cf. Todd 158 278, 284, 889, 891, 982; Interstate Commerce Commission Brimson, 154 447, 481, 489, 1125, 1134, 1137, 1047; Ferreira, How. 40, 44—48, 42. Cases jurisdiction martial Quirin, 1, 2, 18, 87 3; King Governor Lewes Prison, 61 Sol.J. 294, Harv.L.Rev. 771. classification juvenile often admitting exclude parents, juveniles benefit nature. Wilkowski, 687, 259 658. characterization resolving Cf. Gompers 233 604, 610, 611, 693, 695, 58 1115. Radin, Right Public Trial, Temp.L.Q. 381—384. Early commentators mention commonly attempting trace origin. Sir Smith 1565 De Republica Anglorum bk. pp. 101 (Alston ed.1906); Matthew 1670 History Common Law 343—345 (Runnington Ed.1820). 1649, Long Parliament abolished Chamber, high treason Special Oyer Terminer claimed Trial John Lilburne, How.St.Tr. 1270, 1274. 'By immemorial usage, wherever prevails, spectators admitted.' Bishop, New 957 (2d Ed.1913). Penn.Const., Declaration IX (1776); N.C.Const. (1776) (criminal verdict 'open court'). Vt.Const., ch. art. (1787); Dela.Const. (1792); Ky.Const. XII, cl. Tenn.Const. XI, (1796); Miss.Const. (1817); Mich.Const. (1835); Tex.Const. (1845). Four states, Massachusetts, Hampshire, Virginia Wyoming, specifically requiring constitutions Mass.Const. Pt. XII; N.H.Const. arts. XV, XVI: Va.Const. 8; Wyo.Const. 10. Massachusetts implication statute exclusion cases. Mass.Gen.Laws c. 16A (1932). Hampshire Wyoming mentioned. Virginia, discovered, provides: felony misdemeanor persons whose deemed necessary.' Va.Code Ann. 4906 (1942). Forty-one states: Ala.Const. 6; Ariz.Const. II, 24; Ark.Const. 10; Cal.Const. 13; Colo.Const. 16; Conn.Const. 9; Del.Const. 7; Fla.Const. F.S.A.; Ga.Const. par. 5, Code, 2-105; Idaho Const. Ill.Const. 9, Smith-Hurd States.; Ind.Const. Iowa Kan.Const. 11; La.Const. Me.Const. 19; Minn.Const. 6, M.S.A.; Miss.Cons. 26; Mo.Const. Mo.R.S.A.; Mont.Const. Neb.Const. N.J.Const. N.J.S.A.; N.M.Const. 14; (no court'); N.D.Const. Ohio Okl.Const. 20, Okl.St.Ann.; Or.Const. Pa.Const. P.S.; R.I.Const. S.C.Const. 18; S.D.Const. 10, Vernon's Ann.St.; Utah 12; Vt.Const. Wash.Const. 22; W.Va.Const. III, Wis.Const. 7. Nev.Comp.Laws 10654 (1929); N.Y. Civil Law, Consol.Laws, 12. Maryland Appeals interpreted prohibiting trials. Dutton State, 123 Md. 373, 386—388, 91 417, 422, 423, Ann.Cas.1916C, 89. 381, 389. countries resembled Inquisition examination witnesses, Esmein, Continental 183—382 (1913); Ploscowe, Development Inquisitorial Accusatorial Elements Procedure, J.Crim.L. & Criminology 372—386. ecclesiastical Great Britain, intermittently jurisdiction, described name Inquisition, differing torture, bulk comparatively unimportant Stephen, 402 (1883). praised publicity Blackstone, Commentaries *373; Rationale Judicial Evidence, 594—595, 603 (1827. succeeded renounced claim sessions formerly suits. Scott Scott, (1913) A.C. 417. Davis Cir., 247 F. 395, L.R.A.1918C, 1164; Keddington Ariz. 457, 459, 172 273, L.R.A.1918D, 1093; Williamson Lacy, 86 Me. 80, 82, 83, 943, 944, L.R.A. 506; 387, 89; Jenks, Book (3d Ed.1932). Some authorities examined privately discredit Apparently agreed grilled tortured, effort objectionable Chamber's practices prerogative rules occasion demanded. Holdsworth, 163, 165, 180—197 Ed.1937); 386 388; Washburn, Am.L.Rev. 21, 25—31. 388. cachet king forthwith imprisoned exiled himself. eighteenth century issued blank local police. Louis XV supposed 150,000 lettres reign. device employed prosecute crimes royalty preventing airing intra-family scandals. Voltaire, Mirabeau Montesquieu, denounced cachet, Revolution, temporarily revived Napoleon. Encyc. Brit. 971; Soc. Sci, Other attributed been: (1) come attention key parties. These voluntarily forward give important testimony. Wigmore, Evidence 1834 Ed.,1940); Tanksley 145 F.2d 58, 59, 156 257. (2) learn government acquire confidence remedies. Ed. 1940); Bentham, 525 (1827); Keeler, 52 Mont. 205, 1080, L.R.A.1916E, Ann.Cas.1917E, 619; 489. (1932); Auld, Comparative Jurisprudence Process, U. Toronto L.J. 99; 381; Scotland England, 108 Edinburgh Rev. 174, 181—182; Holmes, J. Cowley Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392, 318; Osborne, 54 Or. 295—297, 103 62, 64—66, Ann.Cas. 627. Murray, 89 276, 286, 995, 998, 809, Am.St.Rep. 294: 'It crime—the innocently victim unjust prosecution, guilty, awarded trial—that (as trials) applied all.' Frequently quoted Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.1927) 647: 'The accused; unjustly condemned, interested keep triers keenly alive sense responsibility importance functions 524 (1827). Compare Yeager, 113 228, 71 491, Reagan 202 488, L.R.A.,N.S., 583. collection analysis Ed.1940); 385—387 (1947); 389—391; Note, Mich.L.Rev. 474; Det.L.J. 129; 265. 'For contemplated constitution, officers court—men whom, safe say, influence court—made excluded.' Hartman, Cal. 244, 153, 154, 108. Beckstead, 96 528, 88 P.2d 461 (error friends accused); Benedict People, Colo. 126, 637 (exclusion bar students upheld); Hall, 51 App.Div. 57, 64 N.Y.S. 433 upheld designate remained). 'No gone affirmatively press.' 474, 476. deplore sensationalism advocate preserve admission press, selected community. 394—395; 139. 35. decisions involving various kinds multitude statement: Snyder 97, 116, 330, 336, 78 674, 575; Powell Alabama, 287 45, 68—70, 53 55, 63, 64, 77 158, 527; Hovey Elliot, 167 418, 841, 844, 215; Holden Hardy, 169 366, 391, 383, 780; Morgan 304 14, 15, 773, 774, 775, 82 1129, cited. note supra. requirement, contemplates sufficiently advance plea made. White Ragen, 324 760, 764, 65 978, 980, 1348; 435, 527. 'witness' ga nd jury-judge who, discloses, submit cross-examination. notes, reexamined recommitted serving length, satisfaction 483. Cochran Kansas, 316 255, 62 1068, 1453. appears, attenuated appellate Others crime, non-discretionary records appeal. shift proceeding punitive function converts 1223, Black. 531, 118, 232. E.g., Twining Jersey, 211 97; demonstrated Rights' 'inconveniences,' just, administering clear restraints. Notwithstanding Betts Brady, 455, 1252, 1595, progeny, imagine permissible indeed guaranty bring seemingly obstructive self-incrimination; assistance Amendment; relating suits Seventh involve outweighed secured, largely defeated, broadly application protections. enunciated principle force lessened time: ordained, true, descendants Englishmen, inherited traditions history; undefined expanding future, gathered, tongues; pride principles forget lands jurisprudence prevail, unknown. governments, Code Roman empire foundation modern civilization Europe, maxim distributive suum cuique tribuere. nothing Magna Charta, rightly construed ought age; characteristic draw inspiration fountain assume sources supply exhausted. contrary, expect experiences mold shape less useful forms.' 530, 'Neither argument urged reverse witness's constituted process. much basic,—the commitment. (To) shocking lower incomplete court.' Petitioner's 'Brief Answer Brief Michigan,' 13, 14.

Category: 0