Court Opinion

ID: 9421774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:59:47.210402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.553052
License: Public Domain

*53Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
with whom Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan join,
dissenting.
I find myself in disagreement with the majority opinion, not because of its interpretation of the scope of the immunity provisions here in question, but because it sanctions the procedure used below to convict petitioner summarily of criminal contempt and to sentence him to 15 months’ imprisonment under Rule 42 (a) when the proceedings should have been in accordance with Rule 42 (b). The denial of even the minimal protections accorded by Rule 42 (b) deprived petitioner of an opportunity to prepare a legal defense, or to demonstrate extenuating circumstances,1 and satisfied neither the plain intent of Rule 42 nor the principles of fair play.
Rule 42 (b) prescribes that criminal contempts “shall” be prosecuted on notice allowing a “reasonable time for the preparation of the defense” and other protections, except in those instances wherein Rule 42 (a) provides that contempts committed in the presence of the court “may” be punished summarily. This demonstrates that the general mode of procedure was to be that prescribed by Rule 42 (b). On the other hand, Rule 42 (a) covers *54only specific situations and even then the contempt procedure need not be summary. In the light of the concern long demonstrated by both Congress 2 and this Court3 over the possible abuse of the contempt power, ■ it is obvious that Rule 42, (a) was reserved for exceptional circumstances. These might include threatening the judge, United States v. Hall, 176 F. 2d 163, or other acts disrupting,court proceedings, and obstructing the administration of the court’s business. United States v. Landes, 97 F. 2d 378.
Rule 42 (a) was not inserted in the Rules in order to ease the difficulties of prosecuting contempts. It was not meant to authorize the practice of having government prosecutors force persons who had already committed con-tempts outside of the presence of the court to repeat the action before the court and thus subject themselves to deprivation of'their rights under Rule 42 (b). Given the purpose of Rule 42 (a) with its admittedly precipitous character and extremely harsh consequences, this Court should not countenance a procedure whereby a contempt already completed out of the .court’s presence may be reproduced in a command pérformance before the court to justify summary disposition. That is not to say the Government could not properly bring the petitioner before the court a second time. Of course, both the Government and the grand jury could use such additional persuasion to obtain answers to the questions. But that second refusal should not constitute a second contempt. Nor should this procedure alone justify imposing a more *55severe penalty than would have been appropriate for contempt of the grand jury.4
After petitioner refused to answer the questions the judge might very properly have summarily committed the petitioner to jail for civil contempt until he answered the questions. Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358, 363. See Gompers v Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 442. This is not disputed. • In such a proceeding the recalcitrant witness although summarily committed is said to carry the keys to the jail in his own pocket. See In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461. Or, upon presentment, the judge might have given notice in open court of a criminal contempt proceeding to be commenced under the procedures set forth in Rule 42 (b), and the Government so concedes. That is the normal manner of proceeding in these cases. See Wong Gim Ying v. United States, 98 U. S. App. D. C. 23, 27, 231 F. 2d 776, 780; Carlson v. United States, 209 F. 2d 209, 216.
But the Government was not satisfied with such a procedure. On April 8, though., ostensibly seeking the court’s assistance in obtaining the answers to the questions, the prosecutor never even faintly suggested any coercive remedy.5 Rather, from thé outset he spoke in terms assuming that petitioner would continue his refusal to testify and made known to the court that he would seek a summary disposition under Rule 42 (a) immediately. After the finding of contempt, he asked the judge to. *56give petitioner a substantial sentence and the judge complied — with 15 months in the penitentiary. He then asked the judge to omit a purge clause which the judge did.6 Thereafter he urged the judge to deny bail and the judge promptly acceded to that request.
Beyond a short statement, nothing was offered by the Assistant United States Attorney to show the seriousness of the contempt.7 The offense the grand jury was investigating was punishable by no more than a fine. 71 Stat. 352, 49 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 322 (a).
I do not assert that the contempt could not be more serious than the offense under investigation,8 but where there is a disparity such as exists in this case, a hearing should be held to demonstrate, subject to rebuttal, at least the purpose and significance of the grand jury ■investigation, the witness’ relationship to the subject matter under investigation, and the effect of the witness’ recalcitrance on the future of the investigation.
The Court’s opinion observes that the judge may reduce the sentence within 60 days of the termination of these proceedings under Rule 35. But that power has been held to be discretionary, Flores v. United States, 238 F. *572d 758; Miller v. United States, 224 F. 2d 561, and does not in any sense make-a term in the penitentiary comparablevto a jail commitment for civil contempt. Exercise of Rule 35 power does not make petitioner any less a convicted criminal. Also, the failure to invoke civil contempt indicates that the judge intended the sentence to be punitive and not coercive.9
It is asserted that only a legal issue is involved here— the scope of immunity — so. that there was no need to give petitioner time to.'prepare a defense under Rule 42 (b).10 But this overlooks the right of petitioner to .present evidence in extenuation and to show what other courts had done in similar circumstances. This argument also neglects the importance of affording the judge an opportunity for reflection. A judge should not be forced — or goaded— into spur-of-the-moment decisions where the imprisonment of a person is in the balance. There is no indication that the district judge expected the grand jury to return on the afternoon of April 8. Yet, within a short time after its return, the judge had convicted the petitioner and séntenced him to 15 months in prison for his conduct and had denied bail. Neither counsel discussed the sentences given, in comparable cases and, from the severity of the sentence here, it is clear that the judge was not *58advised how othér judges were treating similar offenses.11 There is no statutory limit for the length of sentence in contempts of this character. Apparently, the 15-month sentence in this-case is the longest contempt sentence ever *59sustained by any appellate court in the federal system for a refusal to answer questions of a court or grand jury.12 Even a short delay might have given the judge, enough time for research to establish that the Government’s reason for seeking omission of the purge clause was groundless.13 Also, the judge took no time to consider the bail *60question. After a minimum of argument by counsel, the judge denied bail pending appeal.14
Shortcuts in criminal procedure are always confusing15 and dangerous, but they aré particularly so here, because if sanctioned by this Court, prosecutors throughout the federal system will be tempted to do all they can to make Rule 42 (b) a dead letter. The contempt power traditionally has been utilized sparingly and only when necessary to uphold the dignity of the courts. Early in our history, the limits of the power to punish, for contempt were said to be “the least possible power adequate to the end proposed!” Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said in Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1, 24-25 (dissenting opinion):
“To dispense with indictment by grand jury and trial by a jury of twelve does not mean the right to disregard reason and fairness. Reason and fairness demand, even in punishing contempt, procedural safeguards within which the needs for the effective administration of justice can be amply satisfied while at the same time the reach of so drastic a power is *61kept within limits that will minimize abuse. While experience has shown the necessity of recognizing that courts possess this authority, experience has also proven that restrictions appropriate to the purposes of the power must fence in its exercise. Hence Congress, by legislation dating back more than a hundred years, has put geographic and procedural restrictions upon the power of the United States courts to punish summarily for contempt. . . .
“The Court did so for a reason deeply imbedded in our legal system and by that very fact too often neglected. Times of tension, which are usually periods of war and their aftermath, bring it to the surface. Reflecting no doubt their concern over untoward events in law enforcement arising out of the First World War, Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Holmes gave quiet warning when they observed that ‘in the development of our liberty insistence upon procedural regularity has been a large factor.’ Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 477. It is not for nothing that most of the provisions of our Bill of Rights are concerned with matters of procedure.
“That is what this case is about — ‘procedural regularity.’ Not whether these petitioners have been guilty of conduct professionally inexcusable, but what tribunal should sit in judgment; not whether they should be punished, but who shoiild mete out the appropriate punishment; not whether a Federal court has authority to prevent its proceedings from being subverted, but how that authority should be exercised so as to assure the rectitude of legal proceedings and at the same time not detract from the authority of law itself.”
And, shortly thereafter, the Court adopted this viewpoint. See Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11. The importance of procedural regularity often lies in advising *62the defendant of the procedure he must expect and giving him time to prepare. Also, judicial reflection is an invaluable by-product of procedures that are designed to be no more precipitous than necessary to meet the demands of the situation. Here, there was no demonstrated need for haste and no resultant benefit (except in saving the United States Attorney’s office the-time and effort of preparing for a hearing on notice). There had already been a fully committed contempt before the grand jury which might have been prosecuted within a short time giving petitioner only “a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense.” This Court with its supervisory power over the administration of criminal justice in. the federal courts, McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 340, should not permit the utilization of summary contempt procedures where immediate action is not necessary'for the preservation of the respect and dignity of the federal courts. Improvident use of summary procedures only weakens that respect.16
In the light of the sentences given in this type of case, I doubt if any judge in the federal system would summarily send a witness to the penitentiary for 15 months' for merely refusing to testify in a grand jury investigation of whether a trucker is operating without an ICC certificate. It is quite obvious that much of the sentence was for some reason collateral to that investigation. It is not sufficient for the purpose of increasing punishment to act on the suspicion that the refusal of the witness to testify may redound to the interest of a racketeer, and on that basis deny him the protections that Congress has seen fit to accord to all witnesses before grand juries. If such factors are to play a part in the sentence the witness is entitled to a hearing on notice.
*63Unfortunately, the failure to adhere to procedural regularity may be glossed over in the investigation of matters of burning public interest, but it should be remembered that the deprivation of the rights of a witness in such an investigation must apply as a precedent to people in all walks of life, both good and bad. I suggest that the full import of the decision -in this case will not be recognized until it is applied at some future time in other types of investigations and to other people.
I would reverse the conviction.

 The prosecutor indicated to the court that the inquiry, though directed toward minor .violations of the Interstate Commerce Act, was really, part of an effort to discover facts concerning notorious gangsters suspected of complicity in the Victor Riesel acid-throwing incident and general racketeering in the Southern District of New York. In view of the total absence of any intimation that petitioner had violated the Interstate Commerce Act or was himself guilty of criminal conduct, the actual basis for his refusal to testify may well have been fear of gangster reprisals, a not unreasonable fear in such circumstances. Regardless.of the legal significance of such a defense, see Widger v. United States, 244 F. 2d 103, a hearing .would have provided an opportunity for presentation of such facts to the judge and might well have affected the length of sentence.

 See, generally, Frankfurter and Landis, Power of Congress Over Procedure in Criminal Contempts in “Inferior” Federal Courts — A Study in Separation of Powers, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 1010.

 See, e. g., Cammer v. United States, 350 U. S. 399; Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11; Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33; Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204.

 Although the district judge asked petitioner other questions during this second proceeding in the courtroom, the judge’s certificate makes clear that the contempt found was for refusal to answer the six substantive questions and not for any other answers. Cf. Carlson v. United States, 209. F. 2d 209, 216.
In practice, contempts before the court are punished no more severely than those before the grand jury. See n. 11, infra.

 See the statement in n. 5 of the Court’s opinion. But see n. 9, infra.

 See n. 13, infra.

 The only expression by the Assistant United States Attorney about the connection of petitioner with the grand jury investigation then in progress was the following statement made during discussion of the punishment:
“The information that it is desired to elicit from this witness, I represent to the Court, is of the very greatest importance, and the witness’ refusal to answer is a very great stumbling block to this investigation and to all these investigations.”

 Comparing this sentence with that possible under the penalty for obstructing the administration of justice, 18 U. S. C. § 1503, is not meaningful because in such a prosecution petitioner would have been entitled to all of the safeguards normally afforded criminal defendants, including, of course, the very basic protection of trial by jury.

 This would seem true despite the confusion existent in the courtroom just before the sentencing wherein the prosecutor asked the judge for a “substantial sentence, and that is done not so much for any punitive effect as' it would be for the coercive effect of the sentence.” This was stated just after the prosecutor had requested the judge to omit a purge clause!

 Although this Court disagrees with petitioner’s argument concerning the breadth and applicability of the immunity.provisions in question, the Court of Appeals did grant bail and its opinion recognized that the point had some “novel aspects.” 247 F. 2d 332, 338. Thus, when considering the action taken by the district judge, it must be recognized that the question of immunity was not frivolous.

 The following cases involving.contempt of the grand jury appear to be the only appellate decisions in the Second Circuit: O’Connell v. United States, 40 F. 2d 201 (three months with purge clause), cert. granted 281 U. S. 716, cert. dismissed on stipulation of counsel 296 U. S. 667. Lang v. United States, 55 F. 2d 922 (90 days with purge clause), cert. granted 285 U. S. 533, cert. dismissed 286 U. S. 523. United States v. Weinberg, 65 F. 2d 394 (60 days); United States v. Zwillman, 108 F. 2d 802 (six-month sentence reversed); United States v. Weisman, 111 F. 2d 260 (six-month sentence reversed); United States v. St. Pierre, 132 F. 2d 837 (five-month sentence), cert, dismissed as moot 319 U. S. 41. The following cases in the Second Circuit definitely adopted the procedure here in question: United States v. Trock, 232 F. 2d 839 (four-month sentence with purge clause), reversed 351 U. S. 976; United States v. Curdo, 234 F. 2d 470 (six-month sentence with purge clause) reversed 354 U. S. 118; United States v. Gordon, 236 F. 2d 916 (six-month sentence containing a purge clause reversed); United States v. Courtney, 236 F. 2d 921 (three-month sentence reversed); United States v. Miranti, 253 F. 2d 135 (two 5-year sentences reversed with a comment on the district judge’s anger at the witnesses).
Cases from other Circuits involving grand jury contempts: United States v. Caton, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,758 ($5 fine); In re Counselman, 44 F. 268 ($500 fine and civil contempt) reversed sub nom. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Elwell v. United States, 275 F. 775 ($500 fine and civil contempt); Camarota v. United States, 111 F. 2d 243 (six months); United States v. Hoffman, 185 F. 2d 617 (five months), reversed 341 U. S. 479; Healey v. United States, 186 F. 2d 164 (four sentences of one year or more and one $10 fine reversed) ; United States v. Greenberg, 187 F. 2d 35 (five-month sentence), reversed 341 U. S. 944; Carlson v. United States, 209 F. 2d 209 (18-month sentence vacated); Hooley v. United States, 209 F. 2d 219 (nine-month sentence vacated); O’Keefe v. United States, 209 F. 2d 223 (nine-month sentence vacated); Maffie v. United States, 209 F. 2d 225 (one-year sentence vacated); Daly v. United States, 209 F. 2d 232 (one-year sentence vacated); Hooley v. United States, 209 F. 2d 234 (one-year- sentence vacated).
•The following cases involve contempts for refusals to answer in *59the courtroom: Rogers v. United States, 179 F. 2d 559, aff’d 340 U. S. 367 (four-month sentence for refusal before court to testify before grand jury); Green v. United States, 193 F. 2d 111 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (six-month sentence for telling court he would not obey order to produce records before the grand jury at a-later date); United States v. Field, 193 F. 2d 92 (C. A, 2d Cir.) (one sentence of 90 days and two sentences of 6 months, all with purge clauses for refusals to answer certain questions and produce certain documents at hearing before the court); Enrichi v. United States, 212 F. 2d 702 (six-month sentence and $500 fine for refusal before court to testify before grand jury).
Even refusals to testify during the- course of trial have not been punished as severely: In re Cashman, 168 F. 1008 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.) (8 months and $750 fine for refusal to answer questions at bankruptcy hearing); United States v. Barker, 11 F. R. D. 421 (90 days and $1,000 fine for refusal to testify on cross-examination during trial) ; United States v. Flegenheimer, 82 F. 2d 751 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (six months for witness’ refusal to give direct testimony); United States v. Gates, 176 F. 2d 78 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (30 days with purge clause for refusal to answer question on cross-examination during trial); Widger v. United States, 244 F. 2d 103 (one-year sentence for refusal to testify reversed).

 All of -the longer sentences have been vacated or reversed on appeal: United States v. Miranti, 253 F. 2d 135 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Carlson v. United States, 209 F. 2d 209; Healey v. United States, 186 F. 2d 164. The 18-month sentence sustained in Lopiparo v. United States, 216 F. 2d 87, was not for a refusal to testify. Rather, the contempt there was based upon the judge’s disbelief of defendant’s story that he could not find the corporate books which he was ordered to produce before the grand jury. 216 F. 2d, at 91. Even the sentence in that case contained a purge clause.

 The stated reason for requesting omission of a purge clause was the legal effect it might have in shortening the fixed term. But. see Lopiparo v. United States, 222 F. 2d 897. Cf. Loubriel v. United States, 9 F. 2d 807, relied on by the Government.

 Eight days later, the Court of Appeals granted bail and petitioner has been at large since.

 The question of whether the April 8 proceedings were conducted in secret is the subject of some confusion caused by the swift procedure invoked. It is clear that on April 5 the courtroom was cleared. It is also clear that on April 8 the grand jury returned to the courtroom ostensibly for further aid and assistance, and that the grand jury reporter read to the court what had happened earlier. Though the transcript does not so indicate, it would seem most likely that secrecy was again in effect. In fact, petitioner’s counsel objected to the procedure and asked that he be served in “open court” with notice of the charges. There is no indication of any change in this situation after the refusal to answer and before the actual contempt proceeding. The Assistant United States Attorney has stated that in fact there were no spectators in the courtroom on April 8. A secret proceeding is no. less secret because the defendant is allowed to have counsel. See also n. 10, supra.

 Reliance upon the improper application of Rule 42/(a) to petitioner in this case, makes it unnecessary to discuss the issue raised in Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 193 (dissenting opinion)