241 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1957), 14743, Simpson v. United States
|Citation:||241 F.2d 222|
|Party Name:||Herbert SIMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||February 11, 1957|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1957.
Reuben G. Lenske, Portland, Or., for appellant.
C. E. Luckey, U.S. Atty., Robert R. Carney and Thomas B. Brand, Asst. U.S. Attys., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before FEE, CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.
Before a Congressional sub-committee conducting a phase of an investigation at Portland, Oregon, Herbert Simpson on June 19, 1954, refused to answer the following questions:
'1. Mr. Simpson would you please state your residence?
'2. Isn't it a fact that you live at 9115 North Geneva, Portland, Oregon?
3. Would you give this committee, please, a brief resume of your educational background?
'4. Now, Mr. Simpson, did you ever go to high school?
'5. Were you ever in the armed forces of the United States?'
The ground for refusal Simpson stated was the questions would tend to incriminate him. He relied on the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which reads in relevant portion as follows:
'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself * * *.'
On November 30, 1954, a federal indictment was handed down by the grand jury at Portland. It contained a count for the refusal to answer each question. Contempt of Congress was charged. See 2 U.S.C.A. § 192. It asserted that the hearing was being conducted pursuant to 60 Stat. 828 by a sub-committee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives.
Conviction by a jury on the five counts of the five questions set forth above followed on January 20, 1955. On January 31, 1955, a concurrent sentence of ten months imprisonment was imposed on each count. A fine of $250 was levied on the first count (Mr. Simpson would you please state your residence?) alone.
All of the sentences on the last four counts, being within the limits of the first count and no part of the same four counts being cumulative, this court need proceed no further than the first count, if the judgment thereon is sustained. Goldbaum v. United States, 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 74. Winger v. United States, 9 Cir., 233 F.2d 440.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP