United States v. Arbuckle, Cr. No. 68155.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 68155. |
| Citation | 48 F. Supp. 537 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ARBUCKLE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
John L. Laskey, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Warren E. Magee and Paul J. Sedgwick, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant.
Howard Boyd, of Washington, D. C., for Robert C. Henderson.
At the trial of the above-named defendant on a charge of embezzlement, lately held before me, the defendant and a witness named Robert C. Henderson, who was called in defendant's behalf, gave false testimony. This testimony not only tended to establish innocence of the defendant, but strongly suggested criminal guilt of a prosecution witness. In these grievous circumstances, it appeared advisable, if possible, that the Court should act summarily to punish the witnesses. Being willing to accord them full opportunity to explain their testimony, I set a time when the defendant and the witness Henderson might give any reasons they had why the Court should not punish them by way of adjudication in contempt. At the time set, both admitted to me that their testimony was not true in material respects, but both insisted they had been mistaken and that their testimony was not wilfully false. Through counsel, they stated they did not wish to question the power of the Court to act summarily, but at the same time, their counsel frankly advised the Court that after study of applicable law, they felt the Court had no such power. The District Attorney has argued in favor of the power of the Court to act by way of adjudication in contempt.
The Court must squarely decide the question of its jurisdiction to act, without regard to its own wishes or those of counsel. Where witnesses wilfully have given false testimony in open Court, they should be dealt with promptly and severely. The deterrent force of punishment is lost by delay. Respect for the Courts will not be maintained if witnesses are permitted to give false testimony without both challenge and punishment. But there is another point of view, emphasized by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a judge has no power to punish for contempt by reason of false testimony alone, otherwise he would be in a position to force his will upon witnesses and control their testimony. To use its exact words, the Court said: "Thus it would come to pass that a potentiality of oppression and wrong would result and the freedom of the citizen when called as a witness in a court would be gravely imperiled". Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 384, 39 S. Ct. 337, 340, 63 L.Ed. 656, 659, 11...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Michael, 8734.
...quality of contempt though one of its aggravations be the commission of perjury."4 As pointed out by the court in United States v. Arbuckle, D. C. D. C., 1943, 48 F.Supp. 537, in every perjury case the false testimony tends to obstruct justice. It imposes burdens on court and counsel and it......
-
Collins v. United States
...1955, 133 F.Supp. 120, 128, (alleged false testimony with admission by witness that testimony could be false); United States v. Arbuckle, D.C.D.C. 1943, 48 F.Supp. 537, 538 (perjury 3 Before the grand jury appellant testified as follows: "Q. I am talking about murder now. You knew that murd......
-
Boylan v. Detrio
...if proven, would not constitute civil contempt. Indeed they would not, standing alone, constitute criminal contempts. In United States v. Arbuckle, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 537, the court points out that, however much false testimony should be deplored and strongly dealt with, "a judge has no power......