Graham v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee

• Decision Date: 19 December 1960
• Citation: 126 So.2d 133
• Parties: Edward T. GRAHAM, Appellant, v. FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 133

126 So.2d 133

Edward T. GRAHAM, Appellant, v. FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 19, 1960.

Tobias Simon and Howard W. Dixon, Miami, for appellant.

Mark R. Hawes, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

THORNAL, Justice.

Appellant Graham seeks reversal of an order of the circuit court upholding the validity of Chapter 59-207, Laws of Florida, 1959, and adjudging him guilty of contempt of court for refusing to answer certain questions propounded to him by the appellee Committee.

We are requested to pass upon the constitutionality of Chapter 59-207, Laws of Florida, 1959. We must also determine whether various constitutional rights of appellant were violated by the order of the circuit court directing him to answer certain questions propounded by the appellee Committee.

Appellant Graham has appealed to us on two other occasions in connection with matters relating to the inquiry being pursued by the appellee. In re Petition of Graham, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 16; Gibson et al. v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 729.

At a hearing conducted by appellee Committee on November 4, 1959, the attorney for the Committee propounded to the appellant the following question: 'Are you presently a member of the N.A.A.C.P.?' Other questions involving his possible N.A.A.C.P. membership were also asked. The one we quote is typical. The witness inquired as to the pertinency of the question. He was informed that the Committee desired to ascertain whether he was a member of the N.A.A.C.P. in order to follow with questions regarding possible N.A.A.C.P. membership by certain other individuals who had previously been identified as members of the Communist Party. Graham declined to answer the question on the ground that compulsory response would violate his First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. He stated that if he should reveal membership in N.A.A.C.P. he would be exposed to social, economic, and perhaps physical abuses because of a community antagonism toward the organization and its program. The witness stated that the revelation of the names of the members of N.A.A.C.P. would result in disastrous reprisals against them in the form of threats of physical violence, loss of jobs, and harassment and annoyance in many forms. He asserted that the disclosure of membership in N.A.A.C.P. would cause the withdrawal from the organization by current members and the refusal of others to become members. This would result in substantially handicapping the organization in the accomplishment of its program. Ultimately N.A.A.C.P. would bcome completely non-existent in Florida. There was considerable testimony regarding the deterrent effect of compelled disclosure of membership in the N.A.A.C.P. The testimony that was offered and other testimony that was proffered tended to corroborate the statements of the appellant Graham regarding community attitude toward the organization and its members. The appellee Committee offered no testimony regarding the public need which would justify obtaining the requested information from this particular witness. When the witness declined to answer the Committee's inquiry he was cited by the circuit judge to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of Court. Thereafter the matter was heard by the circuit judge and testimony was given or proffered to support appellant's concern over the compelled disclosure of association with the N.A.A.C.P. Again the respondent Committee offered no testimony to support the State's claim of a compelling need for this particular testimony from this particular witness. However, the circuit judge concluded that there was no competent reliable evidence showing any substantial risk of deterrent effect on the membership of N.A.A.C.P. that would result from disclosure of affiliation with the organization. He further found that 'facts and circumstances of the proceeding at bar are such that the interest of the State is so grave, pressing, and compelling,' that the constitutional rights of the witness should yield to the asserted power of the State to compel the disclosure of the desired information. The witness continued to decline to answer. He was sentenced to six months in jail and to pay a fine of $1,200.00 with an additonal six It is this judgment failure to pay the fine. It is this judgment of contempt that we are now asked to reverse.

It is unnecessary to discuss as length the matter of the constitutionality of Chapter 59-207, Laws of Florida, 1959. The circuit judge ruled correctly in upholding the validity of the act. We have approved his ruling in this regard in Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, Fla., 126 So.2d 129.

The asserted constitutional right of the appellant to decline to answer the question propounded causes much more concern. It should be remembered that the critical question simply was, 'Are you a member of N.A.A.C.P.?' This witness was not interrogated as to any affiliation with the Communist Party or its organizational satellites. We are not here concerned with any effort to require the witness to respond to inquireis which would suggest any subversive activity on his part. In fact, the records compiled by the appellee Committee suggest that there is no adverse inference to be drawn from the Committee's interrogation of the witness Graham.

Although the circuit judge appears to have concluded that the record was devoid of...