People v. Zazove
| Decision Date | 19 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 15732.,15732. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ZAZOVE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Harry A. Lewis, Judge.
Irving G. Zazove was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and brings error.
Reversed.
John J. Healy and Benjamin C. Bachrach, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Edward C. Fitch, of Springfield (Henry T. Chace, Jr., Edward E. Wilson, and Clyde C. Fisher, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
The superior court of Cook county entered an order on May 31, 1923, adjudging Irving G. Zazove guilty of contempt of court, and committed him to the county jail for six months, and he has sued out a writ of error.
The record consists of the order and the bill of exceptions. The order recites that, it appearing to the court that Irving G. Zazove, attorney of record for the plaintiff in the case of Kryza v. Chicago Evening American Publishing Company, has in his possession a certain paper which was offered in evidence in that case, and was also introduced as an exhibit in the criminal court of Cook county in the case of People v. Zazove, and was, after a rule to show cause entered against certain witnesses in the case of Kryza v. Chicago Evening American, voluntarily shown to the court by Zazove, said paper purporting to be a portion torn from the cover of a magazing by Tee Brown, who alleged that she had written thereon certain names and addresses of witnesses who testified in the case of Kryza v. Chicago Evening American, and it appearing to the court that said paper is important evidence in a certain proceeding pending in this court, wherein a rule has been entered upon certain persons to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt of court, and that Zazove has been repeatedly requested to produce said paper in open court, a notice was duly served upon him that a rule would be entered upon him to produce said paper instanter on May 19, 1923, and he having appeared in open court with counsel, and the rule to produce the paper instanter having been entered against him, and he having been sworn as a witness, and the court having ordered him to produce said paper, and he having refused to produce it, or to allow the court to inspect it, giving as a reason therefor that said paper might tend to incriminate him, the court finds that Zazove is guilty of contempt of court in refusing to answer said questions, or to produce said paper in open court.
The bill of exceptions shows that on May 19, 1923, the plaintiff in error, in response to a notice served upon him that a rule was about to be entered requiring him to produce the paper, appeared in court with his counsel, and there was colloquy in which the court insisted upon the production of the paper. The plaintiff in error declined to produce it on the ground that it would tend to incriminate him, and his counsel stated that until the statute of limitations had run the plaintiff in error was in danger of prosecution for perjury for his testimony in the criminal trial. He further stated that the plaintiff in error ought to give his answer under oath, and requested the court to enter a rule on him to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. The court asked the plaintiff in error, ‘Will you turn it over, Mr. Zazove?’ Zazove answered that he stood on his constitutional right. The court remarked, ‘I don't care what your rights are; you refuse to turn it over?’ Zazove answered again, ‘I refuse to turn it over on the ground it tends to incriminate me.’ The court said, ‘All right; I am going to hold you in contempt of court; well, you have already answered the rule now.’ The court, after some talk as to a stay of the mittimus, then sais: ‘One year in the county jail for Mr. Zazove; now stay the execution of the sentence two weeks.’ No order was entered then or at any time until May 31. On the latter date the plaintiff in error appeared in court, and through his counsel asked leave to file his verified answer instanter to show that he was acting in good faith in refusing to produce the paper, believing that it would tend to incriminate him, and relying upon his constitutional right, and also to reduce the penalty. Leave to file the answer was refused and the judgment was entered; the term of imprisonment being six months, instead of one year. Thereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to vacate the judgment, and asked leave to file his verified petition in support of the motion. The court granted leave to file the petition, but immediately struck it from the files.
The defendant in error contends that there is nothing before this court except the judgment itself, and if the findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment there can be no reversal. The substance of the findings is that the plaintiff in error had possession of the paper, and was ordered to produce it in a cause in which it was material evidence, but refused to do so on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him. On these findings he was adjudged guilty of contempt, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail. The court made no finding that the production of the paper would not tend to incriminate the plaintiff in error, or that it would. The judgment affords no ground for any inference on this question. Before the judgment was entered the plaintiff in error sought to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and asked that a rule might be entered for that purpose. No rule was entered, for the reason that it was not necessary in a case of contempt committed in the presence of the court. The defendant asked leave to file his answer setting up the facts upon which he relied to justify his refusal to produce the paper. He was denied leave, and afterward moved to vacate the judgment, showing by his verified petition the same facts alleged in the answer which he had been refused leave to file. The court allowed the statement to be filed, but immediately struck it out, saying:
‘Let the record show that it is stricken by reason of the fact that it contains matters that are not germane to the subject before the court and is a reflection upon the integrity of the court.’
The constitutional provision is that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself. This applies to the forced production of writings or other evidence as well as to oral statements. Lamson v. Boyden, 160 Ill. 613, 43 N. E. 781. The court apparently failed to appreciate the force of this constitutional provision, for in response to the statement of the plaintiff in error, ‘I stand on my constitutional right,’ the court said, ‘I don't care what your rights are; you refuse to turn it over?’ and upon the plaintiff in error's statement, ‘I refuse to turn it over on the ground it tends to incriminate me,’ the court said, ‘All right; I am going to hold you in contempt of court.’ The answer which appears in the bill of exceptions contains the facts upon which the plaintiff in error relied as showing that the evidence would have a tendency to incriminate him. The court's refusal to permit the filing of the answer must be regarded as a holding that the facts stated were insufficient to show the existence of the privilegeof the witness to refuse to produce the evidence. The facts stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Myers
... ... 613, 43 N.E. 781), and it has also been held to preclude compulsory production of documents in his possession, even though they do not contain assertions by him, where such documents will furnish a link in the chain of evidence by which he might be convicted of a crime. (People v. Zazove, 311 Ill. 198, 142 N.E. 543.) Furthermore, we think under the facts of this case that the privilege could be invoked by counsel for Donna Marie Stone. Professor Wigmore has stated, 'The rule is that the privilege must be claimed personally; however, the courts, especially when the witness is a ... ...
-
Zisook, In re, s. M
...are reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination, the privilege should not exist where the claim is unfounded. (See People v. Zazove (1924), 311 Ill. 198, 142 N.E. 543; Manning v. Mercantile Securities Co. (1909), 242 Ill. 584, 90 N.E. 238; see generally, 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 454, at 299 ......
-
People v. Sneed
...on the content of the documents and not based on an inference from an act of production. 10-Dzx, 134 Ill.App.3d at 671. In People v. Zazove, 311 Ill. 198, 206 (1924), court held, "the production of the paper would furnish a link in the chain of evidence by which [the defendant] might be con......
-
People v. Burkert
... ... It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether a witness is entitled to counsel upon an application for the entry of an immunity order. See People v. Cochrane, 307 Ill. 126, 138 N.E. 291; cf. People v. Zazove, 311 Ill. 198, 142 N.E. 543 ... Plaintiff in error's second contention is that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury upon the question of whether or not his refusal to answer before the grand jury constitutted contempt. This contention has its point of ... ...