Court Opinion

ID: 9448557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:39:47.679585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:28.998225
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
The majority has limited its consideration to the single issue, namely, “that the indictment was defective because it failed to properly allege the authority of the subcommittee to conduct the hearings in issue, and to set forth the basis of that authority accurately.” The defects in the validity of the indictment are stated in terms of the right of the accused “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (Sixth Amdt., U. S. Const.) and procedurally that the indictment accurately and clearly allege every ingredient of the offense charged. Relying, even after trial, more on pleading than on proof, the opinion asserts that “the Government must establish that a committee or subcommittee was duly authorized and that its investigation was within the scope of the delegated authority” and concludes that “an indictment under Section 192 is defective if the authority is not pleaded,” supporting this assertion by a quotation from the district court in United States v. Lamont, 18 F.R.D. 27, 35, premised upon the underlying fact that the indictment (in the Lamont case) “is barren of any allegation or fact from which the authority of the Permanent Subcommittee to conduct the inquiry can be ascertained.”
*486And so it was. The indictment merely recited that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations was holding hearings pursuant to Public Law 601 and various Senate Resolutions. No allegations whatsoever of authority or scope were alleged. In substance, all that the court had before it in Lamont was a Committee (originally entitled “Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments”) authorized to inquire into governmental activities to determine “its economy and efficiency.” The court held that “[S]ince the indictments fail[ed] to plead a willful or a deliberate and intentional refusal to answer, they [were] defective on this ground alone” (18 F.R.D. at 32.) The court, however, went further and held that the essence of the Lamont offense was the “refusal of a witness to answer a question pertinent to an inquiry before a lawfully constituted committee, acting within the scope of its authority” (18 F.R.D. at 32). With “pertinency” injected into the prerequisites to conviction, “authority,” obviously, must be shown to determine pertinency. Little wonder that the court had insuperable difficulty in finding the pertinency to governmental “economy and efficiency” of four questions asking the witness whether he was a member of the Communist party.
In contrast, the indictment against Seeger alleges that “The Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, having been duly created and authorized by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Section 121(q) (1) (A) (2), (60 Stat. 828), and House Resolution 5, 84th Congress, on or about the 8th day of June, 1955, pursuant to said authorization, directed that an investigation be conducted of Communist infiltration in the field of entertainment in New York.” The indictment continues “Pursuant to said direction, in or about August, 1955, in the Southern District of New York, a duly constituted and authorized subcommittee of said Committee was holding hearings.” It then alleged in conclusory form that the witness “was asked certain questions pertinent to the question under inquiry which pertinent questions the defendant deliberately and intentionally refused to answer.”
Following the Lamont district court’s rejection of “duly authorized” as a sufficient allegation, the majority does not, in my opinion, adequately heed or accept this court’s decision in United States v. Josephson, 2 Cir., 1947, 165 F.2d 82 (Swan, Chase, Clark, C.JJ.). However, the Josephson case and the Seeger case, unlike Lamont, both came before this court after trial and conviction rather than on a technical attack upon the indictment. The indictment in Josephson alleged that pursuant to Public Law 601 and House Resolution 5, 80th Congress, the House was empowered to and did create the Committee on UnAmerican Activities and that the witness was summoned “by authority of the House of Representatives through its Sub-Committee of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities.” There were no direct allegations, as are found here, that the Committee was “duly created and authorized.” Nor was there any specific statement of purpose such as is found here, namely, that the Committee “directed that an investigation be conducted of Communist infiltration in the field of entertainment in New York.” Yet the court in Josephson said of the indictment:
“[1, 2] The above quoted indictment conforms to the requirements of Rule 7(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., following section 687, 327 U.S. 821, 839, and was rightly held sufficient. Indeed, it is a good example of ‘a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.’ It enabled the appellant to understand the nature of the accusation, gave him the needed information to prepare his defense, and made it possible for him to plead the judgment in bar of another prosecution for the same offense should occasion for *487doing so arise. That, as we have often held, is enough to make an indictment good. United States v. Fried, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 1011, certiorari denied, 326 U.S. 756, 66 S.Ct. 97, 90 L.Ed. 454; United States v. Wodiska, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 38; United States v. Achtner, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 49.”
I cannot distinguish the decision in the Josephson case as to the form and sufficiency of the indictment except to believe that the Seeger indictment is a more specific document and, hence, I would hold the indictment as such to be sufficient.1 But even assuming the validity of the indictment, “the next issue is whether there was enough evidence to support the verdict” (Josephson, 165 F.2d p. 86). Since authority and subject matter of inquiry relate directly to the pertinency of the questions asked, both are important. As to the Committee, the court in Josephson said, “The trial court properly took judicial notice of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812, 828, setting forth the duties and the powers of the Committee on Un-American Activities” (p. 87). The same Act is here pleaded and the Committee’s powers should not have to be copied into the indictment.
Seeger’s refusal to answer did not occur before the Committee but only before a Sub-Committee. For this reason, Seeger argues that the authority of the subcommittee must be shown. Although creation of the Committee may be adequately alleged in the indictment,2 this fact does not dispense with the necessity of proving upon the trial the authority of the subcommittee before which Seeger refused to answer, commonly known as proof of the “chain of authority.” The government offered a document dated June 8, 1955 (Exh. 7) authorizing the Clerk to “proceed with the investigation of communist infiltration in the field of entertainment in New York.” Had Seeger appeared before the Clerk and refused to answer, it is more than questionable whether this could have been a Section 192 violation. Had the Clerk proceeded to appoint a subcommittee, his power so to do would have been equally doubtful. But neither of these events occurred.
Somewhat in advance of trial, the government disclosed to Seeger a document (Exh. 8), dated July 27, 1955 (not mentioned in the indictment or in the government’s bill of particulars), merely announcing a date for the hearings (August 15-18) and stating the names of the subcommittee appointed. The government characterizes this document as a resolution passed by the Committee on July 27, 1955, directing the hearings and ratifying the appointment of the subcommittee. Even the most liberal construction cannot transform Exhibit 8 into a resolution of the Committee vesting its authority in a subcommittee and ratifying a previously appointed group of three. I would, therefore, hold that there had been a failure of proof of authority. I realize that this conclusion may seem as technical as the majority’s decision on the inadequacy of the indictment but in contempt proceedings decisional law seems to approve reliance upon technicalities.
At the hearing on August 15, 1955, the Committee Chairman, Francis Walter, clearly stated the purpose and scope of the inquiry, i. e., “the extent to which the Communist Party is active in the entertainment media” and “to ascertain, and to identify individuals who are or were members of the Communist Party and who are using or did use their influence to promote the objectives of the *488Communist Party within the entertainment field.” There is nothing in the record to show that Seeger was present or heard this statement. When Seeger appeared on August 18, 1955, he was asked the question, “May I ask you whether or not the Allerton Section was a section of the Communist Party?” (Count 1), to which he gave a completely nonresponsive and irrelevant answer which apparently was a prepared statement he was determined to make regardless of the question:
“I am not going to answer any questions as to my associations, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this” (GX10, p. 2449).
Equally irrelevant answers were made to other questions which prompted the Chairman to reply in answer to a statement by appellant, “I love my country very deeply, sir,” “Why don’t you make a little contribution towards preserving its institutions ?”
Despite such colloquies, upon a reading of the entire record, I gain the impression that Seeger felt that he had a particular kind of right of privacy, asserted by some in complete disregard of serious Congressional investigations conducted for the welfare of the nation, but that his refusal lacked the elements of criminality. He did not rely on the Fifth Amendment but couched his refusals in terms of “improper” and “immoral.” His irrelevant self-serving replies were more than obvious because no one had asked him concerning his religious or political beliefs or how he had voted in an election. However, these answers probably come forth from a (in my opinion only misguided) personal conception of private rights rather than from a desire to be contemptuous of his country or the subcommittee. At this point of the examination it might have been well for the examiner to have heeded the example set forth in footnote 5 of Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 404-406, 81 S.Ct. 567, 5 L.Ed.2d 633 (1961) and to have advised Seeger as to the pertinency of the questions to the matter which the Committee was authorized to investigate. See also Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456, 467-468, 81 S.Ct. 1587, 6 L.Ed.2d 963 (1961); Sacher v. United States, 356 U.S. 576, 78 S.Ct. 842 (1958); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 208-209, 77 S.Ct. 1173 (1957). After all Seeger was a layman whose mind might well have been concentrating on new songs rather than new legislative enactments. Furthermore, the personalized question as to whether he was a member of the Communist Party or the inquiry as to the places of his performances were scarcely calculated to be so related to the authorized inquiry as to be self-evident without some enlightening explanation.
For the reasons stated, I do not believe that the Government has satisfied the requirements necessary to sustain the conviction and, henee, I would reverse and dismiss the indictment for insufficiency of proof.

. I construe the decision in United States v. Yarus, S.D.N.Y., 198 F.Supp. 425 (1961) as based upon an inadequacy of proof because of the trial court’s belief that the July 25, 1955 document (Exh. 8) was inadmissible on the ground that it had not been set forth in the bill of particulars rather than upon any insufficiency of the indictment as a matter of pleading.

. The indictment alleges that the Committee was “duly created and authorized” and that “a duly constituted and authorized subcommittee of said committee was holding hearings” [in or about August, 1955],