Deutch v. United States, 13694.
Decision Date | 18 June 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 13694.,13694. |
Citation | 280 F.2d 691 |
Parties | Bernhard DEUTCH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Henry W. Sawyer, III, of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, Philadelphia, Pa., pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. George Herbert Goodrich, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Miss Doris Spangenburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher, Lewis Carroll, William Hitz, and Harold D. Rhynedance, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief for appellee.
Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before WASHINGTON, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
This is a contempt of Congress case arising from a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Appellant Deutch was indicted for contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions.1 He was tried in the District Court by a judge sitting alone (jury having been waived), convicted and sentenced on four of the five counts of the indictment.2 On appeal, appellant urges that the subject matter under inquiry and the pertinency to that subject matter of the questions set forth in the indictment were not proved by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt to have appeared with indisputable clarity at the time of the subcommittee hearing. Appellant also attacks the legislative purpose of the investigation and the power of the committee to engage in exposure. He also objects to the admission of certain documentary evidence at the trial. Lastly, he relies on his rights under the First Amendment.
In July 1953, the committee began hearings in Albany, New York, in connection with a general investigation of communist activities in that area.3 At these hearings, there was testimony to the effect that during the period 1947-1953 a communist cell was active on the campus of Cornell University and that students enrolled at the university were accepting positions with communist-controlled labor unions. The committee also received information that appellant had participated in this communist activity and that he might know the name of a professor (theretofore unknown) of the university who had obtained funds for the communist cell. The committee determined to call appellant to inquire into these activities relating to both communism in education and communist infiltration into labor unions.
Thereafter, the committee interrupted the Albany hearings and announced that further hearings were postponed until a later date. The hearings were resumed in Albany in April 1954. At the commencement of the reopened hearing (April 7, 1954), the Chairman of the subcommittee made the following statements:
One of the witnesses called on April 7, 1954, testified as to communist activities at Cornell University from 1947 to 1951. On April 8, 1954, another witness4 testified that he the witness became a member of the communist group at Cornell and was assigned to the Labor Youth League, "which is a sort of training for future communist members." This witness gave testimony about communist activities at the university and stated that Deutch had acted as a contact man, in 1952 and 1953, between the Communist Party and a member of the faculty whose name was unknown to the witness. He also testified that appellant had received a contribution for the Communist Party from an unknown source. For this reason, appellant was subpoenaed to appear before the committee in Albany on April 9, 1954.
As his counsel protested the shortness of time, appellant was granted a continuance to April 12, when, accompanied by his counsel, he appeared before the committee in executive session in Washington, D. C. He was at that time 25 years of age, a graduate student attending the University of Pennsylvania, having previously studied at Cornell. He was represented at the hearing by the same counsel who represented him in the District Court and in this court, and who had secured the continuance for him. Appellant asked for and was granted frequent opportunities to confer with his counsel. Never once did he indicate unawareness of the purpose of the hearing, or doubt as to the pertinency of the questions. At the outset of the hearing, he was informed and questioned by the committee counsel, Mr. Tavener, as follows:
After conferring with his counsel, Mr. Sawyer, Deutch responded under protest that he had been a member of the Communist Party. His objection and answer to the question were as follows:
Committee counsel continued:
After again conferring with his counsel, appellant stated:
"Sir, I am perfectly willing to tell about my own activities, but do you feel I should trade my moral scruples by informing on someone else?"
He was advised that moral scruples on his part "do not constitute a legal reason for declining to answer the question," and he was directed to answer. He declined, stating that he would not answer questions about other people, but only about himself.
Representative Doyle, a member of the subcommittee, then made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deutch v. United States
...a jury and was convicted upon four of the five counts of the indictment. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 280 F.2d 691, and we brought the case here because of doubt as to the validity of the conviction in the light of our pre- vious decisions. 2 364 ......
-
Gojack v. United States, 13464.
...688 — affirmed. No. 13656 — Watson v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 689 — reversed. No. 13694 — Deutch v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 691 — No. 13734 — Knowles v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 696 — reversed. No. 13737 — Shelton v. United St......
- Watson v. United States
-
Whitman v. United States
...the claims covered by the first and fifth contentions must be rejected. And in view of the decision in Deutch v. United States, 1960, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 691, the third and fourth contentions cannot be a basis for As to appellant's second claim, we note that at least half of the ......
-
Faces in the courtroom.
...for Petitioner at 8 (No. 233). (18) Deutch, 367 U.S. at 460 n.4. (19) See United States v. Deutch, 147 F. Supp. 89 (D.D.C. 1956), aff'd, 280 F.2d 691 (D.C. Cir. 1960), rev'd, 367 U.S. 456 (1961). Surprisingly, in view of this being a bench trial, Judge Holtzoff never mentioned Deutch's name......