Arndstein v. Carthy, 575
| Citation | 254 U.S. 71,65 L.Ed. 138,41 S.Ct. 26 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 575,575 |
| Parties | ARNDSTEIN v. McCARTHY, U. S. Marshal |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Rufus S. Day, of Washington, D. C., and William J. Fallon, of White Plains, N. Y., for appellant.
Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for appellee.
Holding that the petition failed to disclose adequate grounds therefor, the court below denied appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus, through which he sought release from confinement for contempt. The cause is here by reason of the Constitutional question involved.
The petition alleges:
That, having been adjudged an involuntary bankrupt, Arndstein was called before special commissioners for examination under section 21a, Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9605). He refused to answer a long list of questions, claiming that to do so might tend to degrade and incriminate him. The District Judge upheld this contention, and denied a motion to punish for contempt.
That subsequent to such examination, and under the direction of the court, the bankrupt filed schedules under oath, which purported to show his assets and liabilities. When interrogated concerning these, he set up his constitutional privilege, and refused to answer many questions, which are set out. Thereupon he was committed to jail.
The writ was refused upon the theory that by filing schedules without objection the bankrupt waived his constitutional privilege, and could not thereafter refuse to reply when questioned in respect of them. This view of the law we think is erroneous. The schedules, standing alone, did not amount to an admission of guilt or furnish clear proof of crime, and the mere filing of them did not constitute a waiver of the right to stop short whenever the bankrupt could fairly claim that to answer might tend to incriminate him. See Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 597, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819; Foster v. People, 18 Mich. 266, 274; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219, 230, 38 N. E. 303; Regina v. Garbett, 2 C. & K. 474, 495. It is impossible to say from mere consideration of the questions propounded, in the light of the circumstances disclosed, that they could have been answered with entire impunity. The writ should have issued.
'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' Fifth Amendment. 'This provision must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregon v. Elstad
...testimony"); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951); Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 73, 41 S.Ct. 26, 27, 65 L.Ed. 128 (1920). 34 LaFave & Israel, supra n. 17, § 6.5(a), p. 480, n. 13. See also Y. Kamisar, Police Interrogation and Confession......
-
Kastigar v. United States 8212 117
...obtained from the compelled testimony.' Id., at 437, 76 S.Ct., at 506. (Emphasis supplied.) See also Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 73, 41 S.Ct. 26, 27, 65 L.Ed. 138 (1920). The broad language in Counselman relied upon by peti- tioners was unnecessary to the Court's decision, and canno......
-
United States v. St. Pierre
...connections" he must "make a full disclosure"; but just what those "connections" must be, was left at large. In Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 138, and McCarthy v. Arndstein, 262 U.S. 355, 43 S.Ct. 562, 67 L.Ed. 1023, the question was presented whether a bankrupt'......
-
Rogers v. United States
...revealed, the privilege cannot be invoked to avoid disclosure of the details.14 The decisions of this Court in Arndstein v. McCarthy, 1920, 254 U.S. 71, 41 S.Ct. 26, 65 L.Ed. 138, and McCarthy v. Arndstein, 1923, 262 U.S. 355, 43 S.Ct. 562, 67 L.Ed. 1023, further support the conviction in t......
-
Racial Justice and Federal Habeas Corpus as Postconviction Relief from State Convictions
...Among those listed: Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 557 (1888) (right to jury trial in federal criminal cases); Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71 (1920) (self-incrimination); Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632 (1915) (double jeopardy); Andersen v. Treat, 172 U.S. 24 (1898) (right to counsel).2......
-
Completing the Rule of Completeness: Amending Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
...of the Amendment must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure."); Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71, 72-73 (1920) ("This guarantee against testimonial compulsion, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, 'was added to the original Constitution i......