Ex parte Frankfeld, 2073
| Decision Date | 09 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 2074.,No. 2073,2073 |
| Citation | 32 F. Supp. 915 |
| Parties | Ex parte FRANKFELD. Ex parte O'DEA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Sol. H. Cohn, of New York City, for petitioners.
John B. Colpoys, U. S. Marshal, Edward M. Curran, U. S. Atty., and Allen J. Krouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
These petitioners are held under authority of a warrant issued by United States Commissioner Turnage authorizing their apprehension. They are charged with a violation of Section 192, Title 2, of the United States Code. Specifically it is said that they have violated the statute by refusing, when before a special committee of the House of Representatives, called the Committee on un-American Activities, to answer certain questions propounded to them, questions said to be pertinent to the subject then under consideration.
I find that Section 192 of Title 2 defines as an offense the failure of a witness who has been summoned before a House committee, such as the Special Committee on un-American Activities, to answer questions pertinent to the subject under inquiry. That statute not only defines the offense and denounces it but prescribes the penalty therefor.
That was not all that Congress did with respect to this statutory offense. By Section 194 of Title 2 the Congress prescribed the procedure by which one said to be guilty of the offense denounced in Section 192 should be brought to trial.
In the first place, I think we must recognize the fact that Congress by these enactments was dealing with political questions and had in mind the necessity of protecting citizens who might be summoned as witnesses from unfair treatment by reason of the fact that differences in political opinion might prevail and that, by reason of such differences, unjust action might be taken.
So, I am of the opinion that Congress, seeking to prevent any such unjust treatment of one summoned to testify upon a public question, determined that there should be a prescribed course by which the charge should be preferred and through which the one accused could be brought before a proper court for trial. So, they did prescribe that when a committee such as this was confronted with an obdurate witness, a willful witness, perhaps, the committee would report the fact to the House, if it be a House committee, or to the Senate, if it be a Senate committee, and that the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate should then certify the facts to the district attorney.
It seems quite apparent that Congress intended to leave no measure of discretion to either the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate, under such circumstances,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Josephson
...be and have not been condoned. See, e. g., United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 308-313, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252; Ex Parte Frankfeld, D.C.D.C., 32 F.Supp. 915. But we think the discrimination argument beside the point. Certainly, if the question were one of Congress' legislating, it ......
-
U.S. v. Mardis
...a grand jury. See 2 U.S.C. § 194. Formal steps by Congress are a prerequisite to a prosecution for this charge. See Ex parte Frankfeld, 32 F.Supp. 915, 916-17 (D.D.C.1940). This process certainly involves more formal conduct by the legislative branch than is alleged to have taken place in t......
-
Marcello v. United States
...States, 279 U.S. 263, 296, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 173, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580; Ex parte Frankfeld, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 915. The position of the United States is well stated in brief of its counsel as "The committee generally was engaged in the inves......
-
United States v. Shelton
...is relevant at all, that argument would more properly be heard at the trial as a matter of defense. But see Ex parte Frankfeld, 32 F.Supp. 915 (D.D.C.1940). The Court is not indicating that the defendant should not have raised the matter in this pretrial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (......
-
Contempt for Oversight and Investigation: Congressional Contemnors, the Grand Jury, and Constitutional Order
...126, 136 (D.D.C. 1957), rev’d on other grounds , 255 F.2d 899 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied , 358 U.S. 842 (1958); Ex parte Frankfield, 32 F. Supp. 915, 916 (D.D.C. 1940); see also Lee, supra note 40, at 257; Theodore Sky, Judicial Review of Congressional Investigations: Is There an Alternativ......
-
Congressional investigations: politics and process.
...United States v. Brewster, 154 F. Supp. 126, 136 (D.D.C. 1957), rev'd on other grounds, 255 F.2d 899 (D.C. Cir.); Ex parte Frankfeld, 32 F. Supp. 915, 916 (D.D.C. (105.) United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). (106.) See FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(c) ("The indictment or information must b......