Brussel v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 October 1969 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed.2d 53,90 S.Ct. 2,396 U.S. 1229 |
| Parties | Karl BRUSSEL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES. No. ____ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Ephraim London, on the application.
Applicant was held in civil contempt by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 7, 1969, and was immediately confined to the Cook County jail. On the same day, the District Court denied him bail pending appeal. On October 8, applicant filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the contempt order, and made an emergency application for bail. The Court of Appeals ordered the United States Attorney to respond to that application by October 13, next Monday. On October 9, the present application was made to me in my capacity as Circuit Justice. Though it is our usual practice to deny such requests when the courts of appeals have not yet ruled on an application for the same relief, I am constrained by the unusual circumstances of this case to depart from that practice.
Applicant was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago and to bring with him certain corporate records. Prior to his appearance before the grand jury, applicant requested, but was denied, immunity from prosecution. Before the grand jury he was asked if he was an officer of the corporations involved. To this and other questions applicant declined to answer, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. He was taken before the District Judge, who overruled his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege, apparently on the ground of the corporate-records doctrine, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911). When applicant persisted in refusing to answer, the court ordered him jailed for civil contempt.
Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118, 77 S.Ct. 1145, 1 L.Ed.2d 1225 (1957), raises serious questions concerning the validity of the contempt order. In that case, a union official, admittedly the custodian of the union's records, refused on Fifth Amendment grounds to reveal their whereabouts to the grand jury. This Court upheld the assertion of the privilege, holding that the corporaterecords exception applied only to the records themselves, not to testimony concerning them, and reiterating the established principle that 'all oral testimony by individuals can properly be compelled only by exchange of immunity for waiver of privilege.' Id., at 124, 77 S.Ct. at 1150, citing Shapiro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co.
...facts, Falstaff could not be compelled to produce documents over which it has had no control. Cf. Brussel v. United States, 396 U.S. 1229, 1230-31, 90 S.Ct. 2, 3, 24 L.Ed.2d 53 (1969) (rule permitting compelled production of corporate records by their custodian may be invoked only against a......
-
IN RE OCTOBER 1969 GRAND JURY, 17990.
...is the custodian of the documents subpoenaed, or indeed that he has any connection with the corporations." Brussel v. United States, Opinion in Chambers, 396 U.S. 1229, 90 S.Ct. 2. 24 L.Ed.2d 53. 2 Mr. London acknowledged at oral argument before us that he had written a letter confirming th......
-
Harris v. United States 8212 145
...Justices have granted bail pending appeal based in part on similar claims of failure of proof. See, e.g., Brussel v. United States, 396 U.S. 1229, 90 S.Ct. 2, 24 L.Ed.2d 53 (1969). Applicant also challenges the hearsay testimony of an informer as to a Tijuana phone number given to him by a ......
-
State v. Balistrieri, 101
...the records of a corporation. United States v. Kordel (1970), 397 U.S. 1, 7, 90 S.Ct. 763, 25 L.Ed.2d 1; Brussel v. United States (1969), 396 U.S. 1229, 1230, 90 S.Ct. 2, 24 L.Ed.2d 53; Curcio v. United States (1957), 354 U.S. 118, 122, 77 S.Ct. 1145, 1 L.Ed.2d 1225; United States v. White ......