Appeal of Murchison, 92

Decision Date06 July 1954
Docket NumberNo. 92,92
Citation65 N.W.2d 301,340 Mich. 151
PartiesAppeal of MURCHISON.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Frank J. Millard, Atty. Gen., Gerald K. O'Brien, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the State.

Charles W. Jones, Wm. R. Colden and George Stone, Detroit, for petitioners.

Before the Entire Bench.

BOYLES, Justice.

This case is companion to In re White, Mich., 65 N.W.2d 296, heard herewith, both cases being appeals from sentences for contempt, on leave granted by this Court. The record here, by stipulation, consists of the application for leave to appeal, briefs, exhibits and testimony filed here on which leave to appeal was granted. The cases mainly involve the same questions and were argued and submitted together.

Both appellants claim that Judge O'Hara, of the recorder's court, did not have the power to hear and punish for a contempt committed before him as a grand juror. That claim has been answered by the decision in the White Case, this day handed down, adversely to this appellant's contention, which now controls here.

In this case, Murchison claims that false swearing before the grand jury is not a contempt of court which can be punished as such; and that the record here does not factually support the finding that appellant swore falsely in the grand jury.

In the companion case, White was found guilty of contempt on the ground that he had refused to answer any questions before the grand juror unless his attorney was present, which demand was denied by the grand juror. In the instant case, as in the White Case, Murchison was cited to appear in recorder's court before Recorder's Judge O'Hara, the grand juror, to answer why he should not be punished for contempt in the grand jury proceeding. A hearing was held thereon in open court, after due notice, and testimony was taken. Murchison was found guilty of contempt, upon a finding that he had testified falsely before the grand jury, based upon testimony taken at said hearing. The court reported who had taken the testimony of Murchison in the grand jury was sworn and testified in open court before Judge O'Hara on the hearing of Murchison for contempt. In the grand jury, Murchison, a policeman, had been sworn and had testified regarding the location of 945 St. Josaphats court, and when asked how many times he had been there said, 'Mone.' He was asked whether he knew that 945 St. Josaphats court had been under observation for months by the police department as a headquarters for gambling, and answered, 'I didn't know, because I am never down that way.' In answer to the question how many times he had gone there in January, 1954, he answered, 'None,' and the same answer as to having been there in March. When asked whether he denied that he was there at any time that year, he answered, 'I haven't been there.' He further testified that he wouldn't even know exactly where 945 St. Josaphats would be, that if they had a picture of him there it couldn't be he, and denied repeatedly that he had over been at that place.

The testimony in the hearing for contempt was squarely to the contrary. Said place was known as a place which a so-called numbers syndicate was occupying as headquarters for conducting gambling. It was material in the grand jury proceedings to investigate whether Murchison knew of this place, was familiar with it and its use as the headquarters of a gambling syndicate; and to show any connection between the gambling syndicate and police officers. An inspector of the Detroit police department testified in the contempt proceedings that shortly after 8:40 a.m. on a certain morning in March, 1954, in company with a lieutenant of the police force, he saw Murchison at the above place. He identified Murchison, whom he had known for more than 5 years, both having been assigned to the same bureau in the police department. He further testified that a police lieutenant was there with him on said occasion and took pictures of Murchison while Murchison was on the front porch of 945 St. Josaphats. The police lieutenant testified that he took moving pictures of Murchison on that occasion and at the above place; that he had been assigned to make observations of 945 St. Josaphats court, that he had known Murchison at least 10 years, and that he saw Murchison on that date at 945 St. Josaphats at about 8:40 a.m. He testified:

'A. When I first saw him, he was walking east on St. Josaphats. He came to the gate, to the entrance of 945 St. Josaphats, walked up on the front porch and rang the doorbell of 945...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Michigan State UAW Community Action Program Council (CAP) v. Austin
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 20 Junio 1972
    ...As ruled unanimously, in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955), reversing 340 Mich. 140 and 340 Mich. 151, 65 N.W.2d 301: 'A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the......
  • Colacasides, In re, 5
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 19 Abril 1967
    ...See In re Oliver (1947), 318 Mich. 7, 27 N.W.2d 323, rev'd, (1949), 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682, and In re Murchison (1954), 340 Mich. 151, 65 N.W.2d 301, rev'd, (1955), 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942.13 Another practice the statute allowed formerly and upheld by an e......
  • Murchison
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1955
    ...punished for criminal contempt of this court because of his aforesaid acts.' 4 In re White, 340 Mich. 140, 65 N.W.2d 296; In re Murchison, 340 Mich. 151, 65 N.W.2d 301. 5 348 U.S. 894, 75 S.Ct. 216. 6 That we lay aside certain other federal constitutional challenges by petitioners is not to......
  • People v. McCartney
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 22 Mayo 1985
    ...proceedings, "the one act constitut[es] two offenses, one against the State and the other against the court". In re Murchison, 340 Mich. 151, 155-156, 65 N.W.2d 301 (1954), rev'd. on other grounds, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). Indeed, that contempt and embezzlement do no......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT