Legal Document

364 U.S. 372 81 Supreme Court Reporter 138 5 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 136 Arthur M. McPHAUL, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. Number 33. Argued Oct. 13, 1960. Decided Nov. 14, Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, See 925, 282. Mr. Ernest Goodman, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Daniel Friedman, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion Court. 1 We here review petitioner's conviction under 2 Code KF62 § 192, Annotated KF65 U5 1921 willful failure to comply with a subpoena House Representatives commanding him produce certain records Civil Rights Congress before Subcommittee Committee on Un-American Activities. The principal question presented is whether th evidence justified trial court's rulings that called by were in existence, subject control, and pertinent Committee's inquiry. relevant was as follows. Having knowledge had been declared subversive organization Attorney General—indeed, having itself earlier found be one—and reason believe petitioner its Executive Secretary,2 Activities caused issued served upon appear Activities, or subcommittee thereof, at stated time place Michigan, February 26, 1952, there 'all records, correspondence memoranda pertaining of, affiliation other organizations all monies received expended * (and) then testify touching matters inquiry committed said *.' 3 Upon opening hearings Detroit chairman made public statement, saying, among things, has 'disclosed concentration Communist effort defense areas country,' consisting part keeping 'the national Party international movement fully advised industrial potentialities' such areas, '(t)here no area greater importance Nation whole, both peace war, than general Detroit,' he concluded statement that: 'The purpose this investigation determine first, activity vital area, if so, nature, extent, character objects thereof.' 4 Accompanied counsel, appeared commanded subpoena, following colloquy occurred: 'Mr. Wood (the chairman): McPhaul, committee heretofore you duces tecum, documents. Are prepared respond subpoena? 6 Wood: Will answer my question, McPhaul. documents papers have 7 McPhaul: Wood, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions refuse any which deals possession custody books subpoena. claim privilege fifth amendment Constitution. 8 Tavenner (Committee counsel): would like ask witness refusing 9 In order complete record, McPhaul it response just read now decline, stated, therein for? 10 reasons, record. 11 Is responses answer? 12 That given. 13 To 14 subpoena; yes.' Petitioner sworn, and, after submitting answering few preliminary questions, 15 Tavenner: not are directed produced 16 My is, questions deal 17 answered judgment. 18 statement. 19 No sir. You them. asked pertains records. Now, will them? 20 not.' 21 Following receipt Subcommittee's report these occurrences, certified matter Eastern District Michigan initiation contempt proceedings against petitioner, indicted July 29, 1954. After denial his motion dismiss indictment,3 entered plea guilty case put jury. Government offered those portions transcript we mentioned, various authorizing proceeding, letter letterhead Congress, dated 16, over name, what purported signature, Secretary.4 22 evidence, but moved verdict acquittal substantially grounds asserted indictment (see note 3) further failed adduce sufficient show existence control they denied, thereupon requested court charge jury, substance, unless from beyond reasonable doubt him, should find guilty. refused request instead, charged jury consider 'whether designated actually defendant, because defendant legitimate reasons failing noncompliance when subcommittee.' 23 guilty, fined sum $500 sentenced imprisonment period nine months. Appeals affirmed, Cir., 272 Federal Reporter, 2nd 627, granted certiorari, 362 917, 80 670, 737. 24 Petitioner's contentions showing or, may was, therefore sustained minimum, submitted resolution. 25 It course true '(a) imprison does responsible their unavailability, cf. Jurney versus MacCracken (294 125, 55 375, 79 L.Ed. 802), impeding justice explaining happened them, Goldstein, 1939, 105 150.' Bryan, 339 323, 330—331, 70 724, 730, 94 884. But, so far record shows, never claimed either Subcommittee, Court, Appeals, here—that did exist control. Rather, claim, first raised more two years appearance could notwithstanding 26 think Court's decision highly questions.5 For there, 'if (petitioner) association, decent respect Representatives, whose authority subpoenas issued, required (he) state (his) return writ.' Id., page 332, 731. Such given an opportunity avoid blocking taking appropriate steps obtain 'To deny objection remedy obstruction processes. Bevan Krieger, 1933, 289 459, 464—465, 53 661, 662 663, 77 1316.' His make 'a patent evasion duty one summoned congressional (, and) cannot condoned.' 333, 27 Government's proof thus established prima facie basis believing coupled even suggest ability clearly supported inference burden shifted present some explain justify refusal. Morrison California, 291 82, 88—89, 54 281, 284, 78 664. But elected evidence. circumstances, factual issue, respecting resolution 28 Fifth Amendment excuse producing well settled '(b)ooks kept 'in representative rather personal capacity self-incrimination, though production might tend incriminate (their keeper) personally.' White, 1944, 322 694, 699, 64 1248, 1251, 88 1542.' Rogers States, 340 367, 372, 71 438, 441, 95 344. And see Curcio 354 118, 122—123, 1145, 1148—1149, 1225. Similarly, merit argument unable without thereby inviting risking waiver self-incrimination. 1145. Nor rule Blau 159, 223, 170, subpoenaed capacity, 1542, asserting inability if, later expects matter. 29 Inasmuch neither nor attempted introduce hold concluding charging him. 30 next contends place, ground pertinency, Barenblatt 360 109 123, 1081, 1091, 1115 buy need rest score, 'pertinency' shown. purposes hearing (Detroit), extent Earlier also being used purposes. memoranda' relating three specified subjects: (1) 'organization of' group, (2) 'affiliation organizations,' (3) (it).' seem clear enough auspices organized, identity affiliations, source funds whom distributed prime considerations determining Communists area. If affiliated known organizations, support activities facts, suppose, shown facts appears 'plainly incompetent irrelevant lawful (of Subcommittee) discharge (its) duties,' Endicott Johnson Corporation Perkins, 317 501, 509, 63 339, 343, 87 424, but, contrary, reasonably 'relevant inquiry,' Oklahoma Press Publishing company Walling, 327 186, 209, 66 494, 506, 90 614. 31 Finally, broad constitute unreasonable search seizure violation Fourth '(A)dequacy excess breadth variable relation scope supra, 506. relatively one—whether 'there thereof'—and permissible materials sought necessarily equally broad. 32 suppose knew precisely only 'specif(y) particularity subjects relate.' Brown 276 134, 143, 48 288, 290, 72 500. call describes them 'with nature (Subcommittee's) situation permit,' 210, n. 48, '(T)he description contained enable know particular select accordingly,' 290. unduly burdensome, unrelated inquiry, where defect, any, 'could easily remedied,' This sweeping challenges undue 494. 33 Under say violate Fourtn Amendment. 34 Affirmed. 35 Dissenting DOUGLAS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK BRENNAN concur, announced BLACK. 36 Today's marks departure accepted procedure designed protect accused people passion overbearing officials dissent. 37 Act goes prison permits 'willfully makes default' Committee. 192. Congress' place. name officer, agent, member Congress.' contains word custodian establish facts. Neither prosecutor criminal proceeding came trial. can such, refusal facts.1 prosecution immaterial reason: 38 'If case, doubt, subcommittee, explanation non-compliance subcommittee. 39 'I excused compliance merely officer agent therein; lack connection between 40 theory, 'willful' default. 41 presumption innocence, deep our law, most important safeguards oppression. So find, instance dispensed it. do today shifting able documents, requiring whatsoever connects Reliance placed With deference, concededly executive secretary' investigated 'custody records.' 324, 727. issue concerned demand, challenged, Committee, quorum Fleischman, 349, 739, 906, power cause produced. 353—354, 741. situations proves establishes 361—363, 745—746. As respects shift going forward (Morrison 88, 90—91, 285), Cardozo said, way dictum, 'For transfer burden, experience must teach held inculpatory least sinister significance times lacking, event manifest disparity convenience 285. Whatever reach adequate sustain inadequate here. involved conspiracy alien land law California. A citizen, co-conspirator, convicted disqualification co-conspirator alleged alien. holding invocation citizen denied due process. 93, 286. conspirator, 'however own mind,' 'shared design.' Therefore, Cardozo, joinder something proved, essence crime.' ruling rests innocence overcome introduces competent implicating act charged.2 Here crime default There ganization Simple necessary answers. hornbook asked.3 Yet not; foundation laid, starting point throw procedural requirements winds. 42 Failure why cases, 360—363, 745—746; Nilva 352 385, 392, 431, 435, 415. explain, defendant's shown, action standing confession guilt. Once rule. re Smith, C.C., KF105 F3 25, 26—27; Beale, Criminal Pleading Practice (1899), Page 52. man who take oath contempt. Trial Lilburn, How.St.Tr. 1315. Maguire, Attack Common Lawyers Oath Ex officio Administered Ecclesiastical Courts England, Essays History Political Theory (1936), chapter VII, 215. 43 Today step backward. allow go doing more, reveals, challenging right get someone. comes prosecutions, turn square corners. desires judiciary adjudge prove send 'Every person give testimony House, joint concurrent Houses willfully default, who, appeared, refuses shall deemed misdemeanor, punishable fine $1,000 less $100 common jail month twelve months.' 4. challenged grounds, others, relationship, produce,' 'were defendant'; (to be) within purview the' 'and relevancy materiality (the) subpoena'; violated 'defendant's rights Constitution.' letter—taken files—was 1952 days prior hearing—over Secretary. Despite names 'identity persons,' Stebbins Duncan, 108 32, 47, 313, 641, court, objection, excluded exhibit consideration presented. companion questions. respondent claims 'reasonable turns out files attempt link up which, reason, admitted into assaults vigorous lower courts succumbed State Accused: Balance Advantage Procedure, 69 Yale L.J. 1149, shows. Counsel repeatedly once venture near comply. context for.' Again, assumption mere casts non-compliance.

Classification Label: 2