Simpson v. United States, 14743.

Decision Date13 April 1957
Docket NumberNo. 14743.,14743.
Citation241 F.2d 222
PartiesHerbert SIMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

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 résumé 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 on 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.

Appellant's sweep on appeal is broad with 25 specifications of error. The opinion will be limited to the few having some vitality.

In the eleventh specification of error Simpson asserts the indictment was defective in that it fails to charge that the refusal was "willful or wrongful or unlawful." The indictment in the charging language merely says, "* * * the defendant refused to answer those pertinent questions:"

The statute reads as follows:

"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, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, 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, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

An indictment of course should concisely tell the story of what the defendant is charged with doing. While writing the charging language that precedes stating what this defendant has done, it is always at least good practice, and ordinarily required, that one follow the statute. "Willfully" here in Sec. 192 only modifies "makes default." It does not reach through to "refuses to answer." This is a misdemeanor statute. That is an important factor here. Of course, "refuse" necessarily imports "intentionally." "Refusal" is not consistent with words of declination made by one asleep or knocked unconscious or by one who did not understand the English language. While the indictment had no spare words, it was sufficient. The protection to which the defendant was entitled, an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Elkins v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 28 d4 Maio d4 1959
    ...9 Cir., 224 F.2d 367; Toliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 224 F.2d 742; Paquet v. United States, 9 Cir., 236 F.2d 203; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 222; Chin Bick Wah v. United States, 9 Cir., 245 F.2d 274; Donaldson v. United States, 9 Cir., 248 F.2d 364; Robinson v. United Sta......
  • United States v. Chandler
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 12 d3 Julho d3 1967
    ...claimed this was a pretext; if called, Chandler could confirm or deny the ease of finding a mutilated card. 2 Reversing per curiam 241 F.2d 222 (9th Cir.), Wollam v. United States, 244 F.2d 212 (9th Cir.), and MacKenzie v. United States, 244 F.2d 712 (9th 3 In addition to the colloquy quote......
  • Hashagen v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 27 d6 Agosto d6 1960
    ...242 F.2d 122. 4 See Simpson et al. v. United States, 1957, 355 U.S. 7, 78 S.Ct. 14, 2 L.Ed.2d 22, reversing per curiam Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 222; Wollam v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 212, and MacKenzie v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 712; see, ......
  • In re Atterbury
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 18 d4 Abril d4 1963
    ...the authority of the Hoffman case, without opinion. Trock v. United States, 351 U.S. 976, 76 S.Ct. 1048, 100 L.Ed. 1493. In Simpson v. United States, 241 F.2d 222, C. A. 9th, Wollam v. United States, 244 F.2d 212, C. A. 9th, and MacKenzie v. United States, 244 F.2d 712, C. A. 9th, the Court......
  • 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