Legal Document

405 U.S. 9 92 Supreme Court Reporter 756 30 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 762 Joseph COLOMBOv.State of NEW YORK. Number 71—352. Feb. 22, 1972. PER CURIAM. 1 Despite a grant immunity in response to the assertion his Fifth Amendment privilege not be witness against himself, petitioner refused answer questions put him before Kings County, New York, grand jury. On December 7, 1965, trial judge found that had been proper and directed them. Petitioner refused; court, after allowing week's time change mind, signed commitment order stating by 'his contumacious unlawful refusal being sworn as any legal interrogatories for wilful disobedience lawful mandate this Court' 'committed criminal contempt court immediate view presence said was violation Section 750 Judiciary Law State York (McKinney's Consol.Laws, chapter 30) . ..' sentenced days fined $250. 2 Appellate proceedings proved fruitless. then offered testify, offer refused, paid fine served sentence. October 10, 1966, indicted under § 600, subd. 6, Penal 1909, McKinney's 40 'for refusal, duly witness, interrogatories.' The dismissed indictment on double jeopardy grounds but appellate reversed, 32 A.D.2d 812, 302 N.Y.S.2d 488. reversal sustained Appeals, 25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 258, 254 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 340; 29 1, 323 161, which concluded Fourteenth provision did bar indictment. reasoned committed two acts contempt—one 14, jury, other 7 when he obey judge—and civil, criminal, contempt. 3 judgment Appeals must vacated. entered 15, 'criminal contempt,' definite term jail ordered pay fine, neither prosecutor nor considered testify sufficient foreclose execution For purposes Double Jeopardy Clause, confined penalized Yates versus States, 355 66, 78 128, 95 (1957); see also Cheff Schnackenberg, 384 373, 86 1523, 16 629 (1966); Shillitani 364, 1531, 622 Oriel Russell, 278 358, 49 173, 73 L.Ed. 419 (1929). To extent rested contrary view, it set aside. It appears from its supplemental considers 14 partially intertwined. As we understand State's response, petitioner's mature into complete until passed propriety jury's inquiry thereafter court's direction return jury properly him. 4 In Appeals' misconception nature Clause substantial question law has emerged, are disinclined at juncture entertain determine presented petitioner. better course is petition writ certiorari, vacate remand case further inconsistent with opinion, thus affording opportunity reconsider validity Constitution. So ordered. 5 Judgment vacated remanded. 6 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. called When, judicial investigation state law, persisted presiding cited imposed sentence $250.1 later willingness executed. 8 returned an charging testify.2 successfully moved quash indictment, appeal reinstated upheld contention twice same offense Amendment. People Colombo, 340. We granted remanded consideration light Waller Florida, 397 387, 90 1184, 435. 400 16, 91 99, 27 16. remand, however, adhered earlier decision, reasoning first citation civil while charged 'two distinct (were) punished—refusal Grand Jury separate Justice.' 3, 163, 271 694, 695. characterization 15 'civil' rather than dispositive us. sure, federal courts normally bound interpretations involved here right Clause. such cases, governs. Suffice say 30-day $250 constitutes punishment within meaning Bill Rights, least where witness' purge himself testifying does result vacation 622, relied upon respondent, contrary. There, held 'that conditional (the) sentences (allowing contemnors themselves agreeing testify) render(ed) each actions proceeding Id., 365, S.Ct., 1533. present case, contrast, despite testify. 10 Nor contempts involving different avoid prohibition offense. were imposed, inter alia, 'refusal This precisely Respondent lists five elements3 All these elements necessarily included need 'run gantlet' second time.4 Green 184, 190, 221, 225, 199. Law. founded former 600 says '(i)n prove crime contempt, following shown: '1. That defendant unlawfully contumaciously refuse Jury. '2. quorum all times, day testified voted. '3. claimed one. '4. asked defendant, which, answer, relevant germane conducted '5. question.' Supplemental Brief 6. elements—with exception proviso 'when voted' relates sufficiency element plainly 'witness's questions,' ibid., stems formed basis citation. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree Brennan's concurring opinion Ashe Swenson, 436, 453—454, 1189, 1199, 469, said: 'In my requires prosecution, except most limited circumstances, join one charges grow out single act, occurrence, episode, or transaction. 'same transaction' test offence' only enforces ancient vexatious multiple prosecutions embodied responds well increasingly widespread recognition consolidation lawsuit issues arising transaction occurrence best promotes justice, economy, convenience.' (Footnotes omitted.) would repugnant views allow prosecution day, hour, minute

Classification Label: 0