Blau v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
| Parties | BLAU v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Samuel D. Menin, Denver, Colo., for petitioner.
Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Petitioner was summoned to appear before a federal district grand jury in Denver, Colorado. Both before that body and before the district judge where he was later taken, petitioner declined to answer questions concerning the activities and records of the Communist Party of Colorado, claiming his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. He also refused to reveal the whereabouts of his wife, who was wanted by the grand jury as a witness in connection with the same investigation. As to this refusal to testify, petitioner asserted his privilege against disclosing confidential communications between husband and wife. The district judge overruled both claims of privilege and sentenced petitioner to six months in prison for contempt of court. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 179 F.2d 559.
For the reasons set out in our recent opinion in Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223, we hold it was error to fail to sustain the claim of privilege against self-incrimination.
This leaves for consideration the validity of the sentence insofar as it rests on the failure of petitioner to disclose the whereabouts of his wife. In Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7, 54 S.Ct. 279, 78 L.Ed. 617, this Court recognized that a confidential communication between husband and wife was privileged. It is not disputed in the present case that petitioner obtained his knowledge as to where his wife was by communication from her. Nevertheless, the Government insists that he should be denied the benefit of the privilege because he failed to prove that the information was privately conveyed. This contention ignores the rule that marital communications are presumptively confidential. Wolfle v. United States, supra, 291 U.S. at page 14, 54 S.Ct. 280; Wigmore, Evidence, § 2336. The Government made no effort to overcome the presumption. In this case, more- over, the communication to petitioner was of the kind likely to be confidential. Petitioner's wife, according to the district judge, knew that she and a number of others were 'wanted' as witnesses by the grand jury but she 'hid out, apparently so that the process * * * could not be served upon her.'1 Several of the witnesses who appeared were put in jail for contempt of court. Under such circumstances, it seems highly probable that Mrs. Blau secretly told her husband where she could be found. Petitioner's refusal to betray his wife's trust therefore was both understandable and lawful. We have no doubt that he was entitled to claim his privilege.2
Reversed.
Mr. Justice CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
If a communication between husband and wife is made under circumstances obviously not intended to be confidential, it is not privileged. Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7, 14, 54 S.Ct. 279, 280, 78 L.Ed. 617.
Where the privilege suppresses relevant testimony, as it did here, it should 'be allowed only when it is plain that marital confidence can not otherwise reasonably be preserved.' 291 U.S. at page 17, 54 S.Ct. at page 281.
Unless the wife is in concealment, which does not appear to be the case here, the disclosure of her whereabouts to the husband is obviously not intended to be confidential and therefore is not privileged. Not every communication...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christian
...by proving that the communication between the defendant and his wife was not confidential. See Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332, 333, 71 S. Ct. 301, 95 L. Ed. 170 (1951) ("[M]arital communications are presumptively confidential. . . . The Government made no effort to overcome the presump......
-
U.S. v. O'Shea, Miscellaneous Action No. 5:09-mc-00043.
...the O'Sheas themselves, are husband and wife.10 "[M]arital communications are presumptively confidential," Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332, 333, 71 S.Ct. 301, 95 L.Ed. 306 (1951), and may be privileged from compelled disclosure to the government, see United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707,......
-
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Koecher
...court. See, e.g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332, 71 S.Ct. 301, 95 L.Ed. 306 (1951); Appeal of Malfitano, 633 F.2d 276 (3d Cir.1980); Fed.R.Evid. 3 The government has made an offer of proof concerni......
-
U.S. v. Crockett, 74-3923
...Fisher, relying on the marital privilege protecting confidential communications between husband and wife, see Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332, 71 S.Ct. 301, 95 L.Ed. 206 (1951); United States v. Harper, 5 Cir. 1971, 450 F.2d 1032; see generally, C. Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure: ......
-
Privilege and work product
...privately disclosed between spouses is protected under the confidential marital communications privilege. See Blau v. United States , 340 U.S. 332, 333-34, 71 S. Ct. 301, 302, 95 L. Ed. 306, 308 (1951); SEC v. Lavin , 111 F.3d 921 (1997) (upholding privilege in response to administrative su......
-
Privilege and work product
...privately disclosed between spouses is protected under the confidential marital communications privilege. See Blau v. United States , 340 U.S. 332, 333-34, 71 S. Ct. 301, 302, 95 L. Ed. 306, 308 (1951); SEC v. Lavin , 111 F.3d 3-109 t ask 14 P rivileGe anD w ork P roDuct 921 (1997) (upholdi......
-
Table of Cases
...901 n.17 (9th Cir. 1975), Form 7-50 Black v. N. Panola Sch. Dist. , 461 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. Miss. 2006), Form 3-06 Blau v. United States , 340 U.S. 332 (1951), §4:117.3 Blommer Chocolate Company v. Bongards Creameries, Inc. , 635 F.Supp. 919 (N.D. Ill. 1986), Form 7-39 Blue Cross & Blue Shie......
-
Discovery
...privately disclosed between spouses is privileged under the “confidential marital communications privilege.” See Blau v. United States , 340 U.S. 332 (1951). • The media and journalists may object under the journalist- or media-source privilege to disclosure of sources and “facts” acquired ......