United States v. Collins
| Decision Date | 14 May 1906 |
| Docket Number | 4,855. |
| Citation | 146 F. 553 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. COLLINS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
W. C Bristol, U.S. Atty.
L. M Curl and Percy R. Kelly, for defendant.
The defendant at this time petitions the court to vacate the order heretofore made adjudging him guilty of contempt and directing his imprisonment until he complied with the mandate of the subpoena requiring him to bring the books, papers files, etc., specified therein, upon two grounds, namely: First, that since entering the order the grand jury has been regularly discharged; and, second, that prior to such discharge of the grand jury the defendant was indicted jointly with his copartners, E. Dorgan and Francis Devine, and others, charged with the crime of violating the statutes of the United States relating to conspiracy to defraud the government. The order referred to, omitting the preliminary statement, is as follows:
It seems clear that, the grand jury having been discharged, the term of imprisonment as limited by the order under consideration has expired. If this is not so, then the order provides for a perpetual imprisonment, because there is no grand jury before whom the defendant can appear-- a condition that is unwarrantable, and that the law will not tolerate. To be more exact, I should perhaps say that a condition has been brought about under which it has become impossible for the defendant now to comply with the order, and the law will not require of any person an impossible thing. Under the authorities, therefore, further imprisonment by virtue of that order cannot be insisted upon or enforced. Ex parte Maulsby, 13 Md. 625, Append.; In the Matter of Frederick Hall, 10 Mich. 210; Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 176.
The defendant, however, is himself responsible for the condition-- not that the grand jury was adjourned, but that he is unable to comply with the order--because he had abundant time and opportunity to appear and bring with him the documents called for by the subpoena before the grand jury adjourned, and it must be conceded that in the meantime he continued in contempt; and it must be further conceded that the mere fact that the grand jury was discharged does not purge him of his contempt. He continued recalcitrant notwithstanding the order, refusing compliance, and persisted in disobeying the mandate of the subpoena which he was directed to observe. Such conduct could in no sense be construed as purging him of his contempt, and he remains yet in contempt of the original order requiring him to produce the documents under the subpoena. And for this I have no doubt he is still liable for find and imprisonment-- either one or both. As was said in Ex parte Rowe, supra: 'The prisoner may still be liable to fine and imprisonment for disobeying the original order, but he cannot be further restrained of his liberty under the present warrant.'
But it is insisted that this fact that Collins has been jointly indicted with his copartners and others for a conspiracy to defraud the government is tantamount to a showing that the documents called for are self-incriminating, and, being such that the original order was erroneously made and entered, and that this purges him of his contempt, or, rather, that it shows he never was in contempt, because the matter he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Onassis
...testimony. See, as to documents, Wilman v. Miller, Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co., 1942, 178 Misc. 549, 35 N.Y.S. 2d 352, 354; United States v. Collins, D.C.S.D.Or.1906, 146 F. 553, 556; as to oral testimony, O'Connell v. United States, 2 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 201, 205; Mulloney v. United States, 1 Cir., 19......
-
In re Proceedings, 13–2498.
...v. Levine, 288 F.2d 272, 274 (2d Cir.1961); Loubriel v. United States, 9 F.2d 807, 809 (2d Cir.1926) (L. Hand, J.); United States v. Collins, 146 F. 553, 554 (D.Or.1906). In Shillitani, involving two consolidated cases in which the district courts ordered recalcitrant grand jury witnesses i......
-
Thompson v. United States
...States v. Skinner (D. C.) 218 F. 870; United States v. Hart (D. C.) 216 F. 374; United States v. Hart (D. C.) 214 F. 655; United States v. Collins (D. C.) 146 F. 553; In re O'Shea (D. C.) 166 F. 181; Taylor v. United States, 152 F. 7, 81 C. C. A. 197; United States v. Kimball (C. C.) 117 F. ...
-
United States v. Yates
...grounds, 1950, 340 U.S. 898, 71 S.Ct. 278, 95 L.Ed. 651; Loubriel v. United States, 2d Cir., 1926, 9 F.2d 807, 809; United States v. Collins, D.C.1906, 146 F. 553, 554, or after adjournment of a legislature, Marshall v. Gordon, 1917, 243 U.S. 521, 542, 37 S.Ct. 448, 61 L.Ed. 881, there is n......