407 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1968), 21382, Krebs v. Ashbrook
|Citation:||407 F.2d 306|
|Party Name:||Allen M. KREBS and Walter D. Teague, III, Appellants, v. John M. ASHBROOK et al., Appellees.|
|Case Date:||May 14, 1968|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
Argued May 9, 1968.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; David L. Bazelon, Charles Fahy, and Howard F. Corcoran, Judges.
Mr. Jeremiah S. Gutman, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. William M. Kunstler, New York City, Lawrence Speiser, Washington, D.C., and Philip J. Hirschkop, Alexandria, Va., were on the brief, for appellants.
Mrs. Lee B. Anderson, Atty., Department of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. J. Walter Yeagley and Mr. Kevin T. Maroney, Atty., Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees.
Before PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.
On consideration thereof, and this court being in general agreement with the opinion filed by the District Court in this case, Krebs v. Ashbrook, D.D.C., 275 F.Supp. 111 (1967), it is
Ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge (concurring).
I concur in the judgment of the court, but I would go further and direct either the three-judge court or the single District Judge to dismiss the complaint. As I see it, no justiciable controversy is presented by the complaint. Appellants have not been asked any questions. They allege they are threatened by reason of their knowledge of the general reputation of the House Committee. The Supreme Court has passed on the point several times, 1 as has this court. 2 Stamler
v. Willis 3 is not apposite, because there the plaintiffs had been asked questions, had refused, and stood in immediate danger of prosecution.
 I have in mind what the Supreme Court said in Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 619, 82 S.Ct. 1005, 1016, 8 L.Ed.2d 137 (1962): 'Unless interrogation is met with a valid constitutional objection 'the scope of the power...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP