# United States v. Morry Levine

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 2, 1959 · 267 F.2d 335

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/248215

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Morry LEVINE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** June 2, 1959
- **Citations:** 267 F.2d 335; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5229
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Clark, Waterman, Galston
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/248215

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
Having refused to answer questions before a federal grand jury despite the direction of the district court that he do so, appellant was again brought before the district judge, who in the presence of the grand jury addressed the same questions to him, explicitly directed him to answer them, and, upon his refusal to do so, adjudged him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The propriety of Levine’s sentence and of the procedures below leading to his conviction has been recently approved in Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41 , 79 S.Ct. 539 , 3 L.Ed.2d 609 , affirming United States v. Brown, 2 Cir., 247 F.2d 332 , as was the efficacy of the immunity from prosecution granted him under § 205(e) of the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 305 (d). Hence the errors assigned as to them must be overruled. Similarly, there is no merit in appellant’s contention that he was improperly denied compulsory process to prove before the district judge that the grand jury was not in fact investigating violations of the Motor Carrier Act. We know of no decision allowing a witness before a grand jury to probe into the purposes of its investigation or suggesting that the immunity from prosecution granted him would not be valid unless he did so. Levine appeared before the district court as a witness, not a party, Brown v. United States, supra, 359 U.S. 41 , 79 S.Ct. 539 , 3 L.Ed.2d 609 ; as such his claim
*337
of a right to compulsory process is as much without basis as his contention that the Court’s very act of propounding the questions to him violated his privilege against self-incrimination. 359 U.S. 41 , 50 note 10, 79 S.Ct. 539 , 3 L.Ed.2d 609 . He raises no other points of merit on this appeal.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/248215. Public record. Not legal advice.