Blackmer v. United States
Decision Date | 06 April 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 5131,5132.,5131 |
Citation | 60 App. DC 141,49 F.2d 523 |
Parties | BLACKMER v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Frederick DeC. Faust and Charles F. Wilson, both of Washington, D. C., Eugene D. Millikin and Karl C. Schuyler, both of Denver, Colo., and George G. Battle, of New York City, for appellant.
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., and Atlee Pomerene, of Cleveland, Ohio (Frank Harrison, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for the United States.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and COX, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
In No. 5131, appellant, Harry M. Blackmer, was adjudged guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court of the District in failing to respond to a subpœna to appear on October 17, 1927, as a witness on behalf of the United States at the trial of Harry F. Sinclair and Albert B. Fall in that court on a criminal charge of having conspired to defraud the United States in violation of section 37 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 88).
In No. 5132, a mistrial of the Sinclair-Fall conspiracy case having been declared on November 2, 1927, appellant was again subpœnaed to appear on Monday, April 2, 1928, as a witness on behalf of the United States at the retrial of the case. Again he failed to appear. He was also found guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court of the District because of that failure.
The issuance and service of the subpœnas and the proceedings in each contempt case were under the provisions of the Act of July 3, 1926 (c. 762, 44 Stat. 835, U. S. C., Sup. IV, tit. 28, §§ 711-718 28 USCA §§ 711-718).
Section 1 of that act provides that whenever letters rogatory shall issue out of any court of the United States, addressed to any court of any foreign country, to take the testimony of any witness, he being a citizen of the United States or domiciled therein, and such witness, having been personally notified, neglects to appear, the court out of which such letters issued may authorize the issuance of a subpœna addressed to any consul of the United States within any country in which such witness may be, commanding such witness to appear before the court at a time and place therein designated.
The remaining sections read as follows:
On May 13, 1925, in the court below, Sinclair and Fall were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States. On May 13, 1927, counsel for the United States filed in that court a petition stating that at the trial of the case they desired the attendance of appellant and another; that appellant was a citizen of and then beyond the jurisdiction of the United States;
The petition further prayed the issuance of a subpœna addressed to any consul general or consul of the United States within the republic of France, or within any country in which either of the witnesses might be, "commanding such witness to appear before this Court in Criminal Court No. 2, at the City of Washington, D. C., on the 17th day of October, 1927."
This petition was duly verified by Owen J. Roberts, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. On the same day the court ordered the subpœna to issue, and fixed and determined at $500 the amount to be tendered to each witness "for his necessary expenses in traveling to and from Washington, D. C., and for his attendance at Court." Thereupon a subpœna in regular form was issued, and on May 27, 1927, was served on appellant by George Orr, consul of the United States at Paris, France; the consul's return reciting that the service was On June 7, 1927, another such subpœna was served on appellant by Raymond Davis, consul of the United States at Paris, who tendered appellant "the sum of $500 currency of the United States of America," which tender likewise was refused.
On November 4, 1927, counsel for the United States presented a petition to the court below for a rule in contempt, setting forth in detail the proceedings culminating in the failure of appellant to appear as a witness. In addition to the order to show cause, it was prayed that the court direct that the property of appellant within the United States of the amount and value of $100,000, or such other amount and value as to the court might seem proper, be levied upon and seized by the marshal of the court "and held to satisfy any judgment that may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Labor Relations Board v. Baldwin L. Works
...C.J. Witnesses § 40. 56 70 C.J. Witnesses § 25; 28 U.S.C.A. § 654; Benedict v. Seiberling, D.C., 17 F.2d 841, 845; Blackmer v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 141, 49 F.2d 523, 531. 57 Right to Process for Witnesses Before Administrative Tribunals, 1 Bill of Rights Review 131; Gellhorn and Linfi......
-
United States v. Khaled Elsayed Mohammad Abo Al Dahab, Civil Action No. 15-514 (BAH).
...DISCUSSION A defendant may not "clog the wheels of justice by crossing the international border," Blackmer v. United States , 60 App.D.C. 141, 49 F.2d 523, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1931), and "power still resides in the court ‘to put the wheels of justice in motion," Burlingame v. Manchester , 44 App......
-
RIGGS NAT. BANK v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
...of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, 762, 108 S.Ct. 2641, 2657, L.Ed.2d 634 (1988) (emphasis added); see also Blackmer v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 141, 145, 49 F.2d 523, 527 (1931) (grave doubts), aff'd, 284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 L.Ed. 375 (1932). For the reasons stated above, we entert......
-
Austin v. State ex rel. Herman
...See Anderson v. Taylorcraft, Inc., supra. An appearance is effected by introducing evidence and examining witnesses. Blackmer v. United States, 49 F.2d 523 (1931), affirmed, 284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 L.Ed. 375 (1932); Ebenezer Baptist Church v. Barber, 14 N.J.Misc. 192, 183 A. 469 (Dis......