272 F.2d 627 (6th Cir. 1959), 13285, McPhaul v. United States
|Citation:||272 F.2d 627|
|Party Name:||Arthur McPHAUL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||December 05, 1959|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Ernest Goodman, Goodman, Crockett, Eden & Robb, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
George E. Woods, Chief Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Fred W. Kaess, U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief, for appellee.
Harold Norris, Detroit, Mich., on brief amicus curiae of Metropolitan Detroit Branch, American Civil Liberties Union.
Before MILLER, CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges.
WEICK, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was served with a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to produce certain records of the Civil Rights Congress before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the United States House of Representatives on February 27, 1952, at Detroit Michigan.
The subpoena called for:
'documents of the Civil Rights Congress relating to, (A) all records, correspondence, and memoranda pertaining to the organization of, and (B) the affiliation with other organizations, and (C) all moneys received or expended by the Civil Rights Congress.'
Appellant appeared before the Subcommittee, accompanied by one of his counsel of record here, and distributed to the Subcommittee members copies of a prepared statement and a petition. He did not, however, produce the subpoenaed records.
Appellant was sworn as a witness and after giving his name and where he was born, admitted that he had been served with the subpoena. After some sparing with Subcommittee counsel during which he invoked the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, he testified:
'Q. Mr. Tavenner: (The Committee Counsel) No Sir. You have stated that you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to them (the records). I have not asked you a question that pertains to them. I have asked you to produce the records. Now, will you produce them? A. Mr. McPhaul: I will not' (App. 45a.)
Upon his refusal to produce the records, he was indicted for violation of Title 2 U.S.C.A. § 192. 1 He was tried by a jury, convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment and fined $500. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.
In the District Court, appellant moved to dismiss the indictment and for a directed verdict of acquittal. Both of these motions were carefully considered by the District Judge, in oral opinions, in which he analyzed the issues and discussed the authorities. He denied the motions.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP