Court Opinion

ID: 9442684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:55:55.993193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:11.300342
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In my opinion the same result is required wholly apart from what is said about the assurances given the witnesses by the prosecutor, and about the press releases of the Department. The court’s opinion suggests that the assurances were false. I think that if we assume they were true and that it was the Department’s present intention not to proceed against these witnesses, or to investigate them, their right to refuse to answer would be no less, for their privilege is not dependent upon the current intention of the prosecutor, which might change the next day.
Reasonable cause for apprehension existed by reason of (1) the existence of the Smith Act, plus (2) the fact that indictments of others had been returned under the “affiliation” clause of that Act. It was therefore unnecessary to bolster those facts with evidence of the Department’s press releases.