Whitman v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 15416.,15416. |
| Parties | Alden WHITMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Messrs. Thurman Arnold and Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Kaufmann, New York City, was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. David I. Shapiro, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.
Mr. William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Alden Whitman, a copy reader on the New York Times, was found guilty on all 19 counts of an indictment charging him with refusing to answer certain questions put to him by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee,1 and was given a suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months and a fine of $500. He appeals.
Whitman presents five arguments for reversal: (1) The scope of the topic under inquiry by the Subcommittee was too broad and indefinite to illuminate the pertinency of the questions in the indictment; (2) the questions in the indictment are not pertinent to any authorized inquiry since they concern Communist Party associations during a remote period when the conspiratorial character of the Party was obscure; (3) any question about associates in the Communist Party, as distinguished from one's own Party activities, lacks pertinency; (4) even if the questions were pertinent, Whitman's personal interest, under the First Amendment, in following the dictates of his conscience overbalanced the interest of Congress in exposure of Communist Party members; and (5) the Subcommittee's inquiry was devoted to investigating the New York Times, and thus invaded the field of freedom of the press.
Insofar as the subject under inquiry is concerned, the questioning of Whitman was substantially similar to that of the appellants in Shelton v. United States, 1960, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 701, and Price v. United States, 1960, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 280 F.2d 715. In light of those decisions, 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 reversal.
As to appellant's second claim, w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. United States Shelton v. United States Whitman v. United States Liveright v. United States Price v. United States Gojack v. United States 8212 12, 128, s. 8
...was all but acknowledged at the bar. I would affirm. 1. 108 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 280 F.2d 688; 108 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 280 F.2d 701; 108 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 281 F.2d 59; 108 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 280 F.2d 708; 108 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 280 F.2d 715; 108 U.S.App.D.C. 130, 280 F.2d 2. 'Every person who havi......