United States v. Deutch, 13060.

Decision Date26 July 1956
Docket NumberNo. 13060.,13060.
Citation235 F.2d 853
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Bernhard DEUTCH, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., at the time brief was filed, Lewis Carroll and E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. Henry W. Sawyer, III, Philadelphia, Pa., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. George Herbert Goodrich, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before DANAHER, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

An indictment charged that Deutch "unlawfully refused to answer" five specific questions put to him by a Committee of Congress.

The District Court dismissed the indictment as insufficient because it did not charge that the defendant willfully refused. The trial court concluded that since the recent decision in Quinn v. United States, 1955, 349 U.S. 155, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 L.Ed. 964, the word "willfully" was required in the indictment to make out a charge under the statute.

2 U.S.C.A. § 192,1 under which the indictment was drawn, provides:

"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, * * * willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, * * *." Italics supplied.

The question, narrowly, is whether the intent, essential to proof of this offense, must be spelled out by a recital in the indictment that the refusal was willful. After reviewing the Quinn case carefully, we think this is not required. Quinn holds that "a deliberate, intentional refusal to answer" is an element of the offense which, "like any other, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 349 U.S. at page 165, 75 S.Ct. at page 674. In that case the Court was not dealing with the sufficiency of the indictment but of the proof. We agree with the trial judge that the indictment must charge an intentional act, but we think that it does so by use of the word "refused." The indictment charged that Deutch "unlawfully refused to answer" and we think that language charged Deutch with an intentional, deliberate or knowing refusal to answer.2

The statute uses the word "willfully" as a word of art to define the offense of failing to appear, but it does not use the word "willfully" with respect to a person "who, having appeared, refuses to answer * * *." The act of refusing (as distinguished from failing) to answer is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • United States v. Lamont, 301
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 14, 1956
    ...Circuit has recently held, contrary to the decision below, that a specific allegation of willfulness is not required. United States v. Deutch, D.C.Cir., 235 F.2d 853. 3 See Pub.L. No. 601, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., c. 753, which as amended to the date of these alleged offenses provided in "Sec.......
  • United States v. O'BRIEN
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • May 26, 1965
    ...of the thing done but also an evil intent or bad purpose or motive and an awareness of wrongdoing." Also, in United States v. Deutch, 98 U.S.App. D.C. 356, 235 F.2d 853 (1956), an indictment charged the defendant with unlawfully refusing to answer questions. Although the District Court had ......
  • United States v. Parisi
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 30, 1966
    ...C.A.1. This case is analogous to the case at bar but the district judge did not follow it and neither do we. In United States v. Deutch, 98 U.S.App. D.C. 356, 235 F.2d 853, 854, the court held an indictment sufficient which charged that the defendant "`unlawfully refused to answer' five spe......
  • Barenblatt v. United States, 13327.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 3, 1957
    ...refusal to answer. This specific question was ruled on by this court contrary to appellant's contention in United States v. Deutch, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 356, 235 F.2d 853. The argument is also advanced that the indictment is defective in that it does not describe the matter into which the ......
  • 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