Rogers v. United States, 3826

Decision Date15 May 1950
Docket Number3846.,No. 3826,3826
PartiesROGERS v. UNITED STATES. BLAU v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Samuel D. Menin, Denver, Colo., for appellants.

M. H. Goldschein, Washington, D. C. (Max M. Bulkeley, U. S. Atty., Joseph N. Lilly, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

Rogers Case: Writ of Certiorari Denied May 15, 1950.

Blau Case: Writ of Certiorari Granted May 15, 1950. See 70 S.Ct. 979.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

The appellants in these two cases, together with the appellants in cases numbered 3768, 3769, 3770, 3782, and 3783, decided by our Court January 5, 1950, Rogers v. United States, 10 Cir., 179 F.2d 559, were called as witnesses before a grand jury regularly convened for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. They were also asked certain questions with respect to their membership in the Communist Party, their knowledge of its membership, of its officers, its books and records, etc. The questions were in the main identical with those set out in detail in the above cited cases. They both refused to answer on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them. These cases are like that of Nancy Wertheimer v. United States, supra, in that appellants refused to answer any question showing membership in connection with, or knowledge of activities of the Communist Party of Colorado. A formal presentment was filed against Tracy Roy Rogers before the District Court. No formal presentment was filed in the case of Patricia Blau. Specific questions were propounded to them in the presence of the District Court, and they were directed by the court to answer them. They based their refusal to do so on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them. Continuing to refuse to answer, they were found guilty of contempt and sentence was imposed upon them. These appeals challenge the correctness of those judgments.

In Jane Rogers, et al. v. United States, supra, we reviewed the authorities at length which controlled the disposition of these appeals. In the interest of brevity, we will not repeat what was said there, but incorporate by reference the applicable principles set out in that opinion.

In Number 3826, Tracy Roy Rogers v. United States, the presentment of the grand jury stated that the grand jury undertook an inquiry concerning various employees of the United States Government who had allegedly made false statements in connection with their loyalty investigation, in violation of Section 80 revised §§ 287, 1001, Title 18 U.S.C.A., and other criminal laws of the United States.

In the case of Patricia Blau, no formal presentment was lodged.

As in the other cases, for the purpose of passing upon the rights of those appellants to refuse to answer the question propounded to them, the subject of investigation as stated in the presentment in the case of Tracy Roy Rogers will be accepted as the object of the grand jury's investigation.

In Number 3769, Nancy Wertheimer v. United States, we held that within the scope of the grand jury investigation and within the posture of the case before the trial court on the citation for contempt, her refusal to answer concerning her connection with the Communist Party on the ground that her answer might incriminate her was warranted, and that she was not required to give any answer or explanation why her answer might tend to incriminate her. But here, Patricia Blau and Tracy Roy Rogers both gave their reasons for refusing to answer the questions propounded to them. Thus Tracy Rogers, in response to the court's inquiry whether he desired to answer the question, stated: "I do not, sir. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it would tend to incriminate me in view of the indictments under which the twelve national leaders of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Aiuppa v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 11 Diciembre 1952
    ...federal grand jury; and their convictions had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Blau v. United States, 10 Cir., 179 F.2d 559; Id., 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 103. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in each In the wife's case, Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 161, 71 S.Ct. 223, 224, 95 ......
  • United States v. Kremen, Clv. No. 7691-7695.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 14 Septiembre 1953
    ...proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under the name of Patricia Blau. See Blau v. United States, 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 103, Id., 340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223, 95 L.Ed. 110. Her counsel further states, and it is undenied, that bail was there fixed in the......
  • Blau v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 11 Diciembre 1950
    ...guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to imprisonment for one year. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 180 F.2d 103. We granted certiorari because the decision appeared to deny rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.2 The holding below also was in conflict with r......
  • People v. McCormick
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • 27 Febrero 1951
    ...A different result was reached by the United States Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit in the case of Rogers v. U. S. (Blau v. United States) 1950, 180 F.2d 103, and the conflict of this decision with the two we have just reviewed was given by the United States Supreme Court as one of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT