Court Opinion

ID: 9579406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:54:53.327008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:29.858163
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P. J.
(concurring). The witnesses contend that being twice held in contempt and punished for refusal to answer the same or similar questions by successive grand juries engaged in the same or similar investigations violates provisions of the U. S. and Michigan Constitutions. Similar arguments have been rejected by other courts. In Re Martorano, 464 Pa 66; 346 A2d 22 (1975), State v Kasherman, 177 Minn 200; 224 NW 838, cert den, 280 US 602; 50 S Ct 85; 74 L Ed 647 (1929), United States ex rel Ushkowitz v McCloskey, 359 F2d 788 (CA 2, 1966), United States v Duncan, 456 F2d 1401 (CA 9, 1972), rev’d on other grounds, 409 US 814; 93 S Ct 161; 34 L Ed 2d 72 (1972), United States v Hawkins, 501 F2d 1029, 1031 (CA 9, 1974), cert den, 419 US 1079; 95 S Ct 668; 42 L Ed 2d 674 (1974).
This substantial coercive power is not without limitations, however. As stated by the Supreme Court of Maine in a similar context, "[i]t may be that sentences for repeated contempts could become so numerous and oppressive as to constitute a denial of due process”. State v Vickers, 309 A2d 324, 329 (Me, 1973). Accord, United States ex rel Ushkowitz v McCloskey, supra, 790.1 As suggested by then-Judge Learned Hand, information coerced *408from a person under extreme circumstances is information too low in value and too high in cost.2
The witnesses were sentenced to, and have served, two terms of imprisonment each — one term lasting over a year in length, the other a little over three months. They have each been fined $10,000. Under the circumstances of this case, I do not find these sanctions shocking. To again proceed against the witnesses in the same manner in a further investigation of the same activities, however, may well exceed the bounds of propriety.

 "Many methods have been devised at different times and places to compel persons to talk and to give the answers which their interrogators desire from them. Inquisitions doubtless aid in the discovery and prosecution of crime, but there comes a point where they must stop.” Second Additional Grand Jury v Cirillo, 12 NY2d 206, 212; 237 NYS2d 709, 714; 188 NE2d 138; 94 ALR2d 1241 (1963), VanVoorhis, J., dissenting.

 "A man, faced with perpetual imprisonment till he discloses his confederates, will in the end find confederates to disclose.” Loubriel v United States, 9 F2d 807, 809 (CA 2,1926).