Hudson v. United States, 13806.

• Citation: 197 F.2d 845
• Decision Date: 24 June 1952
• Docket Number: No. 13806.,13806.
• Parties: HUDSON et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

197 F.2d 845 (1952)

HUDSON et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13806.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 24, 1952.

J. Hubert Farmer, Dothan, Ala. for appellants.

Ben Hardeman, Asst. U. S. Atty., E. Burns Parker, U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and STRUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Proceeding by libel of information under Sec. 3116 and 3321 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3116, 3321, the United States sought forfeiture of a 1950 model Ford Coach on charges that on March 1, 1951, it was used in the removal, deposit, concealment, and sale of 50 gallons of non-tax-paid distilled spirits.

The claimants having filed their claim and answer denying the charges of the libel, a trial of the issues joined resulted in findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining the claim of the libel and adjudging forfeiture accordingly.

Claimants, appealing from the judgment and seeking its reversal, assign two grounds of error. The first is that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. The second is that the evidence mainly relied on was incriminating evidence extorted from the witness Elbert Johnson by compulsion after he had claimed his constitutional privilege against self incrimination, and the judgment should, therefore, be reversed as based on illegally obtained evidence.

We cannot agree with appellant. We think it clear that there was ample evidence unless, under the appellants' second point, the evidence of Elbert Johnson is excluded. As to this point, we are of the clear opinion that if Elbert Johnson were here complaining of the action of the court in compelling him to testify, we should be obliged to sustain his complaint. We are, however, of the equally clear opinion that appellant cannot predicate error on the compulsion.

The difference between the position of the appellant and that of the witness in respect of the deprivation of his privilege is clearly and correctly set out in Beauvoir Club v. State, 148 Ala. 643, 42 So. 1040, 1043.¹

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1 "The next question presented by the record relates to the action of the court in requiring the state's witness Jackson to testify in regard to sales of liquor by others than himself, notwithstanding the witness claimed the privilege not to testify. If it be conceded that the matters about which the witness claimed the privilege not to testify were incriminating,...