In re Black
| Decision Date | 02 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 272.,272. |
| Citation | 47 F.2d 542 |
| Parties | In re BLACK. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Harold L. Cowin, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert N. Gottlieb, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert H. Kellogg, J. Bertram Wegman, and Emanuel Bublick, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to set aside and vacate the service of a grand jury subpœna. The subpœna was entitled: "In the Matter of United States against John Doe." The objection made to the subpœna was on the ground that it failed to apprise the petitioner of the names of any individuals against whom the inquiry was directed or of the subject-matter of the inquiry. Judge Campbell denied the motion to vacate, and ordered the petitioner to appear before the grand jury. From that order this appeal was taken.
The statute applicable to a subpœna issued on behalf of the United States contains the following provisions: "Witnesses who are required to attend any term of a district court on the part of the United States, shall be subpoenaed to attend to testify generally on their behalf, and not to depart the court without leave thereof, or of the district attorney; and under such process they shall appear before the grand or petit jury, or both, as they may be required by the court or district attorney." Rev. St. § 877 (28 USCA § 655).
The appellant insists that, before a witness is compelled to testify before a grand jury, he should be apprised of the subject-matter of the inquiry or the name of the persons against whom the inquiry is addressed, and that he should not be called upon to go unaided by counsel to an inquiry which is unlimited in scope and for which he is entirely unprepared. But the privilege of a witness against self-incrimination is personal. Neither at a trial nor before a grand jury is he entitled to have the aid of counsel when testifying. It is hard to see then why he must be warned of the nature or extent of the testimony which is likely to be called for. A witness is not entitled to be furnished with facilities for evading issues or concealing true facts. Every bona fide investigation by a grand jury seeks to ferret out crime and criminals. To detect crime and to present charges against the guilty requires the most ample power of investigation. Frequently neither the nature of the crime itself, nor the identity of criminals can be forecast. To be compelled to state either in advance we think is likely unnecessarily to impede investigation and obstruct the administration of justice.
It is true that, in the case of In re Shaw (C. C.) 172 F. 520, the service of a subpœna much like the present was set aside on the ground that it neither gave the names of the persons supposed to have committed offenses nor stated the subject-matter of the inquiry. But, in spite of our respect for the opinion of the judge who sat in that case, we cannot regard In re Shaw as in accord with sound principles. The conclusion there reached was largely based on the statement of the Supreme Court in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. at page 65, 26 S. Ct. 370, 375, 50 L. Ed. 652, "* * * that, in summoning witnesses, it is quite sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against them." But the most that Hale v. Henkel, supra, stood for was that a subpœna which gave the name of a defendant was sufficient, and not that even that information was necessary for the validity of the process.
The statute we have quoted regulating the issuance of subpœnas, where it says that "witnesses who are required to attend * * * on the part of the United States, shall be subpœnaed to attend to testify generally on their behalf," seems by its very terms to allow the broadest, most unfettered, scope to any inquisition.
In a case later than In re Shaw, supra, subpœnas neither naming the persons supposed to have committed offenses, nor giving any information as to the matters to be investigated, were held valid by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in Ex parte Blair, 253 F. 800. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court sub nomine, Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 39 S. Ct. 468, 63 L. Ed. 979, and the subpœnas were sustained. Justice Pitney, writing for the court, said (at page 282 of 250...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groban
...re Groban, 99 Ohio App. 512, 135 N.E.2d 477; 164 Ohio St. 26, 128 N.E.2d 106. 4. Page's Ohio Rev.Code, §§ 3737.08, 3737.10. 5. In re Black, 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 542; accord, United States v. Blanton, D.C., 77 F.Supp. 812; see United States v. Scully, 2 Cir., 225 F.2d 113, 116. 6. Bowles v. Baer,......
-
United States ex rel. Buonoraba v. COMMISSIONER OF COR., CITY OF NY
...U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 23 In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330, 332-333, 77 S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376 (1957); In re Black, 47 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1931); People v. Ianniello, supra, 21 N.Y.2d at 424, 288 N.Y.S.2d 462, 235 N.E.2d 439. 24 United States v. DiMichele, 375 F.2d 959 (......
-
United States v. Winter
...273, 279-283, 39 S.Ct. 468, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919); Hale v. Henked States, 250 U.S. 273, 279-83, 39 S.Ct. L.Ed. 652 (1906); In re Black, 47 F.2d 542, 544 (2d Cir. 1931). 9 See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69-70, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906). 10 Compare United States v. Lawn, 115 F. Supp. ......
-
Application of United Electrical, Radio & M. Workers
...States v. Evans, 213 U.S. 297, 300-301, 29 S.Ct. 507, 53 L.Ed. 803; Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697, 699-706. 17 See In re Black, 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 542, 544; United States v. Hill, 26 Fed.Cas. 315, No. 15,364; In re National Window Glass Workers, D.C., 287 F. 219, 225; United States v. ......