upholding criminal contempt conviction after the defendant refused to answer, “Where did the meetings [with the attorneys] take place?” despite the Court’s denial of the privilege claim over the answer
How later courts described this case
- upholding criminal contempt conviction after the defendant refused to answer, “Where did the meetings [with the attorneys] take place?” despite the Court’s denial of the privilege claim over the answer
- information not relating to subject matter of meetings not protected by attorney-client privilege and for the same reason did not interfere with right to effective representation of counsel
- prosecution following grant of immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEDINA, Circuit Judge
(concurring and in part dissenting).
I agree with my brothers of the majority on all points except the sentence to a period of two years imprisonment. This, in my opinion, is too much. We have held that this Court has power to reduce the period of imprisonment meted out for a contempt of court, see United States v. Levine, 2 Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d 272 , applying the unambiguous mandate of Brown v. United States, 1959, 359 U.S. 41, 52 , 79 S.Ct. 539 , 3 L.Ed.2d 609 , and I would reduce appellant’s sentence to one year instead of two. I realize that this Court has upheld sentences of two years in similar cases, but I wish to register my dissent.