# Petitioners Brief — Brown v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0132%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petitioners Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1959 - **Citation:** 359 U.S. 41 ## Text “LIBRARY. - | | en ee US. \pREME COURT. u. & : 18° 195¢ JAMES R. BROWNING. Clerk ee -_ IN THE Supreme Court nf the United States: OCTOBER TERM, 1957 7 EMANUEL \BROWN,. Petitioner, . against opened STATES OF ‘AMERICA, | "Respondent. ON. WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 3 APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT | PETITIONER’S BRIEF Myron L. SHaprtro and J. BERTRAM WEGMAN, Counsel for Pétitioner, 60 Wall -Street, peetea : New York 5, N. Y. Myron L. SHapriro, : nat ‘ Of Counsel. Se ; PETITIONER’S Brier PR Mier loons aaa Opinion Brtow pcsesieiecomnutoec dias I URISDICTION _ . SEH . Questions PRESENTED FOR REVIEW CoNSTITUTIONAL Provisions, Srarures and Reavia- TIONS INVOLVED ‘ : STATEMENT OF THE CASE ... AnguMent AS cabo ; eaiicaacees Pornt I—Congress in §305(4), Motor Canis . Act did not intend to make the immunity pro- visions of $46, Interstate Commerce Act, | applicable: to Grand Jury investigations of offenses under the Motor Carriers Act. Con- sequently Petitioner could not receive im-. -- munity and was entitled to refuse to answer 13 the questions because of possible self-incrimi- ssh nation ee : , paicblndadinccbseebatesedanchn ‘Port ¥I—Assuming that immunity. was con- 13 -ferred upon Petitioner by section 305(d), . - Motor Carriers Act, this immunity was not co-extensive with his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination : cascades _ 19 aye sf PAGE ‘Porst III—The District Court proceedings | deprived petitioner of his rights under Rule -42(b) of Criminal Procedure and the consti- tutional requirements of ‘Due Process and the fundamental fairness: required in Federal . criminal proceedings. Petitioner. was com- -. pelled to testify against himself in a criminal A Neg re, The fundamental safeguards dué e defendant in a criminal cause were ‘not | - gocorded Petitiomer .....-....-:..-..c: U. 8. v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S, 258, 302 32 ° U, 8. v. Weinberg, 65 F. 2d 394 . 32 * U. S. v. Zwillman, 108 F. 2d 802 . Ve a Warring y. Huff, 422 F. 2d 641 (App..D.C.) 31. ‘ Wong Gim Ying v. U. 8., 231 F. 2d 776, 779, 780... 25,28 ee / ‘iv. | Statutes a . PAGE at err Energy Act, Immunity Provision, Title 42, - ig FEO) vcccccsceseoncniinipnntoneeptinvvocenyeamibartts necct 445 OO China Trade Act, Title Eh Uac. 18. Civi} Aeronautics Act, Title 48, US.C., Ch. 9, _ . $644(1) cooshgesscecconennsnssstectentconnanssseseenennsanasteseesecnnnanssteeet 16, 45, Code of Criminal Preceiiese ee 3 Co ete az §401, Title 18, err Power of court pene rs 8, 27,38 - . §3481, Title 18, U.S.C.F Competency of accused 31, 38 - Commodity Exchange Act, Title 7, U.S.C., $15 ...... 17, 42 : Defense Production Act of 1950, Title 50, U.S.C., App. §2155(a), (b) «.............- cihsdibiaasiiaiagaheinpiciamaiui 18, 46 Emergency Price Control Act, 56 Stat, 30 (1942), RET RP ainen it | Chemeae OP Reon ene Hence Lo 18, 43 Export Controls Act, Title 50, App., U.S.C., $2026 18, 45 Federal Communications Act, 47 U. S. c. §409 (1)... 16, 50 Federal Deposit Insurance Cotporation Law, Title Vac, ee... weit 18,44 . Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure vi Rule 42. Criminal Contempt 7 (a) Summary Disposition sialaisiebiebibiaxal 2, 3, 8, 10, 26, eS 28, 30, 37 (b). Disposition Upon Notice and Hearing... .3, 10, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37 — Federal Trade Commission Act, Immiinity Pro- vision, Title 15, U.S.C., Ch. 2, Section - 17, 34 Immunity Act of 1954, Title 18, U.S.C., §3486(e) ...... 18, 43 Industrial Aleohol Act, 54 Stat. 363, §3119, Title Tee ee Wes ot 16,45 . Investment: Companies Act, Title 15, U.S.C., §80a- : 2 ROG | hele pep ules aoe MIE RnR ee -ononty iavisitene eae Investment Advisers Act, Title 15, U.S.C., §80b-9(d) 16, 47 * Interstate Commerce Act, Title 49, U.S. C., §46.,....2, 5, 9, 13, : : SN | 15, 17, 19, 21, 33 : : rane PAGE Merchant Marine Act,’ 1936, Immunity. Provision, Title 46,-U.S.C., Section 1124 (@) ..-...----ccscsecsececeees WSS: US.C.,.-§405," (a), | | eS Reena ed Bese ie Taft-Hartley Act, Immunity Provision, Title 29, U. S.C., Section '161(3) ss SS A ES H,.3T~ War and Defense Contract Acts of 1951, ‘Title 00, : . App., U.S.C., §1152(a) (4): ......-.--..- eae RPE A toe 16, 47 United ‘States Constitution: . - BE Ammondmment Vi .n....n.ccpeeclceses ses RODE a in 42. Armordmsemt (VE nario senna newness RSH EN atin 43 Pepnenidmant - VTE nn gprenierectite emery - 42 Ete e IN THE Supreme Court of the Buited States gts _ OCTOBER TERM, 1957. No. 356 | | : a. ‘EmMaNvuEL Brown, ON WRIT OF CERTIORABI TO THE U NITED STATES COURT OFS APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT | PETITIONER’S BRIEF Cerliocaid dina ‘been granted to review petitioner's con-— viction for criminal eontempt -in refusing to answer certain questioris i in a grand jury inquiry. Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen (15) months imprisonment. On appeal the Court of Appeals fot the cepa Circuit affirmed. ‘Opinion Below _° “The opinion of the Court of Appeals (R. 52) is sprinted as at 247 F. 2d 332. The District Court’s opinion (R. 34) is not oy printed. Jurisdiction | The jedaonit (R. 64) of the Court .below was ala and entered on July 10,1957. Jurisdiction to review-such | . fos judgment by certiorari is’ conferred on. this Court hy i §1254, Title 28, U.S.C. and. is invoked pursuant thereté _ and Rule 37(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. ~ Questions Presented for Review | 1. Whether pursuant to §305(d), Motor Carriers Att (49 U.S.C.) [infra, ps 32], a witness’in a grand jury | tiers? alleged offenses: under $322 infra, p. 41] of that Act obtains immunity from prosecution for any’ transaction or offense concerning :which he under compul-. sion may there testify or produce evidence, a. Whether Congress in enacting §305(d), supra, _intended to make the immunity. provisions. of. $46, Interstate Commerce Act: (Title. 49, U.S.C.) [infra, p. 33], applicable to grand -jury investigations - | under the Motor Carriers: Act. b. Whether, assuming arguendo, that: some im- ‘munity was conferred upon petitioner: by’ §305(d), supra, it is co-extensive’ with his privilege against _ Self-incrimination and, therefore, constitutional] sufficient to eliminate that privilege. “2. Whether the procedure. which resulted in_ peti- 4 tioner’s conviction of criminal contempt, pursuant to sub- division (a) of. Rule 42, Federal Rules of Criminal Pro- cedure [infra, p. 37], for refusing in the presence of the | Court. and the grand jury to answer certain questions | | ‘previously put to him beforé the grand jury, was valid‘and | | ‘proper. | ‘ | ee Whether petitioner after the dimearton of. the District Court to answer certain questions had .re- \ . eee appeared before the grand jury and refused. again is to answer the questions, was entitled, under sub- division (b) [infra, p. 37] of’ Rule 42, Federal * Rules of Criminal Procedure, the requirements of ~ Due Process and the fundamental fairness requisite - in: Federal criminal proceedings, to notice, reason- able time for preparation and a statement of the. criminal contempt charged. oe b. Whether, /after petitioner returned to the | grand jury pursuant .to the District Court’s order and refused again to answer the questions directed -- to, be answered and was once more brought before the Court, the Court.could, validly ignore Rule 42(b) [infra, p. 37] Federal Rules of Criminal Pro- veedure and refuse. to afford . petitioner . notice, | specification: of charges, and reasonable time for yy lated the requirement that a contempt judgment be. - public. : ! preparation and conipel petitioner to take the stand. and testify and, upon petitioner’s refusal to answer and his statement that he would refuse again to | answer, if returned to the grand jury, convict. peti- — tioner of criminal contempt pursuant to Rule 42(a) [infra, p. 37] as for a eontempt committed .in the presence ‘of the Court... - 1 al ce. Whether -the secrecy of the proceedings vio- —— 3. “Whether the sentenée of fifteen months imposed upon petitioner constituted é¢ruel and unusual punishment. — or, an abnse of the District Court’s discretion. Whether in this. criminal contempt proceeding '. the Court could impose a coercive sentence. 7 ; Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Regulations Involved ° . . The gonstititional provisions, statutes and regulations involved; are set forth in the. appendix to this brief. } Their citations follow: United States Constitution, Amendments V, VI,. VIIT [infra, p. 42]; Motor Carriers Act, Pitle 49, -U.S.C., $$305(d) [infra, p. 33], 322 [infra, pe 4); Interstate’ Commerce . Act, Title 49, U.S.C. $46 infra, p. 33]; Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules me) 42(b) sce p. 37)... | ¥ “f° Snaacen of the Cass Petitioner is a principal of Youn Tempo, yh a New Y York City dress manufacturer (R. 8). T. and R. Trucking ~ Company has transported dresses for Young Tempo, Ine. and Acme Dress Company between New York and | Midvale, New Jersey (R. 8,°9). The actual owner of | thé trucker. (according to. she Government’s information) } _is John. Dioguardi, eibeunh Theodore Rij is the nominal _ proprietor (R. 9). | ~. Active in the Southern” District of New York are grand juries conducting a. general racketeering investigation. and an inquiry. itt thé Victor Riesel obstruction of justice ease (R. 46, 47). Tho subjects of these investigations _ are Dioguardi, Rij‘ (also known as Ray) and _ possibly others (R. 47). The Government here and in the other inv estigations sought to show petitioner’ s associations with these persons (R. 47). Prior,to this. matter petitioner pursuant to subpoena appeared at least eleven times before two of these other grand juries (R. 10, 26). Petitioner’s first appearance - related to the Riesel obstruction of justice case and the — ® % : ae locationgof Rij (R. 26).- Petitioner’s subsequent appear-” ances were before a jury investigating alleged garment trucking. racketeering (R- 26). . At the time hereof, petitioner was still subject to. the earlier subpoenas (R. 26), his farther appearance there- under having been adjourned. . Before the ‘oth ler juries, petitioner ‘mainly claimed his . privilege against self-incrimination, but, concededly, his testimony there “went part way into the area” with which the instant proceedings are concerned (R. 27, 28). Before the other grand juries, petitioner, and. business ; associates were told by the same prosecutor as here that 35 petitioner was to be indicted for violation of the. Internal — Révenue laws. (R. 28). Stee : "In March 1957, petitioner’s counsel was told by ‘this prosecutor that an investigation: under the Interstate Commerce Act was about to be instituted, that petitioner would be subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury, that the immunity provision. contained in 446, ,Title - 49, U.S.C. [infra, p. 33], would apply and that the Fifth - Amendment plea could not be interposed (R. 9, 10). ‘ ‘Thereafter petitioner ‘appeared before the ‘April, 1957 grand jury pursuant to a subpoena requiring him to - appear and “testify * * * in regard to an alleged violation of Sections 309, 322, Title’ 49 United States Code” (R. 17- 19). Petitioner’s counsel was present in the ‘anteroom, of the Grand Jury room. Petitioner was advised that “the foreman * * * will * © * allow you to» consult with your attorney if you feel you desire to do so” (R. 17-19). 3 | | Petitioner was asked (R. 19): “Mr, Brown, are you associated with, Young Tempo, Incorporated?” . ae ' Petitionegjreceived permission to speak with his attor- , ney (R. 19). After such consultation, petitioner returned 6 to the grand jury and the question was read to him again. He refused to answer because of possible self- incrimination (R. 19). _ The prosecutor then advised (R. 19; 20) petitioner “that this Grand Jury is conducting an investigation for possible violations of the Interstate Commerce laws, * * * and that under Title 49 United States Code, * Section 305(d), the Congress * * * has provided that any witness * * * compelled to give testimony as to _any.-matter arising under the; Motor Carrier Section * * * shall by virtue of his testimony be given immunity from federal prosecution as. to any crime which might arise out of the subject matter of his testimony” and that ee he did “not have any privilege to plead the Fifth Amend- ‘ment as to the questions which are going | to be put to” him before this Grand Jury. | Petitioner conferred again with! counsel, returned to the grand jury room and refused once-more to answer the : question on the ground of possible self-incrimination (R. 20, 21). Petitioner was then informed (R. 1) that, if he did not answer this question, he could “be brought before a Judge of this Court and directed to answer this and.other questions”. Once more petitioner consulted with counsel, the same question was again put to him and he refused to answer on the ground of possible self-incrim- | ination (R. 21; 22). Thereafter five more questions were “eeked of petitioner before the grand jury. Petitioner refused to answer all on the ground of possible self-incrimination (R. 22, 23).. The questions: which petitioner refused to answer are: 1. Mr. Brown, are you associated with Young Tempo, Incorporated (R. 21)? 2. Mr. Brown, does Young Tempo, Incorporated, use a trucking company known as the T & 7 R Cutting Company or as the T & R Trucking Company : (R. 22)? 3. Mr. Brown, who do you known to be the owner or owners or .the principal in interest or principals . > in interest of the T & R Cutting or the T & R Trucking Company (R: 22)? 4. Mr. Brown, are you associated with the Acme Dress Coffipany, in Midvale, New Jersey (R. 22).2%. 5. Mr. Brown, does the T .& R Trucking — Company provide trucking services betw een. Young Tempo, Incorporated, in New York City and the Acme Dress™ ° Company in Midvale, New, Jersey (R. 23)?. 6. Mr. Brown, _do you know if the T & R Trucking Company or the T & ’R Cutting Company has 4pplied for or ebtained a permit: from the Interstate Commerce Commission to operate as a contract trucker between New York, New York, and Midvale, New Jersey (R. 23)? : _ After, petitioner’s refusal to answer these questions, the grand jury, the prosecutor, petitioner and counsel : proceeded to District Judge Levet’s courtroom. At the Court’s request, the prosecutor outlined the procedure requested by the Government to. be followed _ (R. 6-8). The courtroom was, cleared (R. 6) and the proceedings throughout were private. y - The prosecutor stated that the grand jury requested the Court’s aid and assistance in a direction to petitioner 0... answer the questions (R. 6-8). Outlining the procedure requested, the prosecutor slated that at the termination~of that hearing “if the Court: _ determines that the witness in fact. must answer the questions, that the Court direct him to answer the ques- tions’ and that “at that point it would be the Govern- ment’s intention to have the Grand Jury and the witness return to the grand jury room, at which point the same questions would be put to the witness” (R. 7, 8). 8 Upon further refusal ‘by petitioner to answer on his. return to the grand jury room, the prosecutor said (R. 8), — ‘etitioner would: be returned to the Court with a second request that the same questions he put to him and, if he, then refused to answer, “the Government would ask that he be held summarily in contempt according to the pre- cedure of Rule 42(a) * * *, and for a viplation of Section . 401, Subdivision 3 (18 U.S .C.) which oak punishable as, contempt the disobedience of a lawful order of the Court.” - The prosecutor also. stated (R..8, 9) : general ' nature of the inquiry.to be “that contrary to the law this T&R Trucking Company. neither applied for. nor received. a_ permit from the Interstate Commerce Commission to operate as: a contract trucker between New Ssese New York, and Midvale, New Jersey.” _ aie, At this point petitioner’s counsel reminded (R. 9) the Court that in his off-the-record discussion of procedure | the prosecutor had said “that the Government’s position was that this. was the only hearing” petitioner was “entitled to”, and applied for°a reasonable adjournment and “a notice from the Government of the specifications — or charges for which we are having: this hearing so that we ean prepare for this hearing and be able to properly. represent our client’, which requests were denied. The existence of issues. of fact was indicated to the. Court by petitioner’s counsel (R. 10, 11). | ° After argument (R. 11- 17) on the applicability of. the immunity sections of the Motor Carriers Act, §305(d) [infra, p. 33], the Government called (R. 17) the grand jury stenographer as a witness.. She read her untran- scribed minutes, of the grand jury proceedings (R. 17-23). When she finished, an adjournment was requested by petitioner’s attorney, but was not granted (R. 24). | 9 Argument was then had on the issues raised by peti- tioner’s appearance before other Grand Juries, and on other issues involved and on the incriminatory nature of the questions put to petitioner. (R., 25-34). _ This part of the proceedings occurred on Friday, April Sth, 1957. The Court directed the parties to return on - Monday, April 8th, at 2:00 P.M. (R. 34). On. April 8th, the Court (R. 34, 35) “* * * determined that the Witness must testify as to the questions * * * | propounded * * * that -* * * Sections 305(d), Title 49 and Section 46 of Title 49 adequately provide for im- munity in the “instances involved * * * that the immunity applies to a grand jury * * * that the im- munity applies in the State Courts * * *” and that the “immunity: exists even though no privilege.is claimed * * * and under the Rules of Criminal Procedure * * * the witness must answer * * *” ee _ The Court also said (R. 36): “I do not think the fact that this witness has testified before other grand juriés © affects this ‘situation * * * He is immune from prose- cution for all matters on. which: he is questioned before -this grand jury * * *”, | The Court then directed the grand jury to retire (R.- 35, 36). Counsel for petitioner requested an adjournment to consult with his client (R. 35). A postponement for thirty minutes was granted (R. 35). aie . Petitioner, pursuant to the Court’s direction, returned to the grand jury rooni’and the six questions ordered. to be answered were again put to him (R. 37-39). Petitioner refused to answer on the ground of possible — self-inerimination (R. 38, 39). The grand jury, petitioner and all counsel then proceeded again to Judge Levet’s courtroom = 36, 37). oe At that time the prosecutor stated to the Judge that ‘the grand jury “again wishes to request the aid and assistance of- the Court. with reference to” petitioner (R. 36). Discussion was then had again as to the nature of - this proceeding (R. 36, 37). | | . The prosecutor said: “At this point the grand jury is” still merely requesting the assistance of the Court. What ’ the Government would request is that if it appears, * * * that the witness is persisting in his refusal * ** the Court itself, in the presence of the grand jury, will put the six questions to the witness and ask him, first, whether he is willing to answer them now, and, santas would he answer them if he were sent back to the grand jury again. And if the witness again refuses here and: now in the physical — presence of the Court or persists.in his refusal to answer, © that the witness be held in summary contempt under Rule 42(a) [infra, p. 87] of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” (R. 36, 37). | And the Court stated “That i is what I propose” (R. 31). ‘Petitioner’s .counsel excepted to this procedure and - requested. complianée: with Rule 42(b) [infra, p. 37], ‘notice of the charges and specifications and an opportu- nity for a full hearing (R. 37). The -publie was excluded. This request. and objection were overruled (R. 37). The | grand jury stenographer was then called ‘and read his untranscribed minutes which disclosed petitioner’s refusal before the jury to answer the quéstions set forth above because of possible .self-inerimination (R. 37-39). | The Court, over objection and’ exception, directed peti- tioner to take the stand in the courtroom (R. 40). ' Petitioner’s counsel also. objected on thie ground that t petitioner was being compelled in a criminal cause to be a ' witness against himself, which objection was overruled | « 40). | | = The Court did not swear petitioner, but deemed him to be under oath, since he had been sworn before the grand . jury. The Court’s ‘theory was that this was “a continu- ance of the Grand Jury proceeding before the Court”.* —: ’ Petitioner’s counsel took further exception and objection to this proceeding (R. 40). . The Court then put to petitioner. the same six questions. Petitioner’ permitted. Re Michael, supra, 227. “As pointed out in Gompers v. Buck's Stove dé Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444: “ee * *. it is certain that in proceedings for criminal contempt the defendant is presumed to be innocent, he must be proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be compelled to tory | against himself.” t Measured against these basic requirements of a pro; ceeding in criminal contempt, namely notice, opportunity to prepare, hearing, presumption of innocence, proof of “ guilt beyond a ‘reasonable doubt and freedom from com- pulsion to testify, the proceedings in this ease and in other similar cases in the Second Circuit fall far short _ and obviously constitute merély a putatively clever device — to circumvent these principles-and to deprive the witness of hiscrights. -Cf. Matusow v. United States, . 229° F. 24.3 (CA. 5). “ _The . procedure here and in other such proceedings in the Second Circuit are so contrived that the commission of the alleged’ contempt and the adjudication. is one interrelated action. 3 ‘The sudden and almost miraculous transmutation of a proceeding (described not as a hearing. but. merely an attempt to obtain the assistance of the Court) into a criminal contempt done in the presence of the Court - (although actually done, if at all, in. the grand’ jury room) |. which is the hallmark of this type of procedings in the Second Circuit enables the Government to debase the fundamental rights of parties;which adhere to any criminal proceeding including one for criminal contempt. -The claim that the proceeding is merely an attempt to secure the assistance of the Court in obtaining the testi-. * 25 mony hog petitioner is self-evidently spurious. Is it: not clear that, from the time that the petitioner first appeared before the Court at the direction of the grand jury until the time when the Court finally directed him, question by question, to answer, the petitioner was in jeopardy and faced, in view of the announced purpose of | these proceedings in the Second Circuit and ‘their char- acteristic endings, a finding: of criminal contempt pur- portedly committed in’ the presence of the Court -and, hence, he was put on the defense of his claimed right not ‘ to auswer these questions and of his conduct? It is no answer to say that petitioner had a hearing, in that the Court listened to his counsel’s arguments, - ‘when he was not permitted to. make any defense on the issues of fact existent in the matter and his presumption — of innocence was abrogated ‘and he was compelled to take ~ the stand. | a i Besides it was, if a hearing, -held before the offense, eS: any, was committéd—ceertainly a novel doctrine. | B.- Correct Procedure In Grand Jury’ Contempts. The correct procedure in the situation presented here is well set forth in Carlson v. U. S., 209 F. 209; 216 ~ (C. A., 1) and ‘Wong Gim Ying v. U. S., 231 F. 2d 776, 779, 780. These cases rest. firmly upon the foundation of Ex Parte Savin, 131 U. S. 267 and Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517. a ee ae = - In the Carlson case the Court described: the proper procedure, as follows: If the witness is recalcitrant on - the ground of his claim of possible self-incrimination, hé is to be brought before the Court which is to rule on the _ availability of the. claim of privilege; if the privilege is overruled by the Court, it “would then normally instruct - the witness to go back to the.grand jury and answer the question. If the witness then and there, in the face of the | 26 Court, declined to do so, this is’ ‘@inobedionse to a Jawful ; order of the Court * ee, ; and since this disobedience occurs © in the ‘actual presence’ ‘of the Judge. it-may be punished summarily under Rule 42(a). eee) | Hence, according ‘to the ‘Carlson case, if at this Solit the witness refuses to return to the grand jury room and ~ © answer the questions, it is his- refusal to return, which is a contempt committed in the’ presence of the Court and © punishable summarily. is nS partes But, if the witness returns to the grand jury room the First Cireuit said in Carlson at page 216: : re). ee there again refuses: to’ answer the ' . question which the court directed him to answer, this is still, disobedience of a lawful ‘order of the’ court * * *. But because such disobedience did not take place in the actual presence of thé court, and thus could be made known to the court only By the: taking of evidence, the court’ would have -to conduct the proceeding in criminal contempt in accordance with Rule 42(b). se hag a / . > - It is at this point that Second Cireuit proceedings - branch off from the proceedings outlined, in the Carlson | case. as proper and proceed post-haste to the i Aides of the witness’ fundamenta// rights. | In the Carison ease, it w as made clear that, at this point, ifthe witness still clainied oe privilege, it was not a criminal contempt proceeding and the “worst-. that could happen, if the ruling is against him (the witness), is: that whe would be given a sécond chance to go before the grand jury and answer the Auestions. 8 ‘(Cf ., Pow ell v. U. S., 226 F.2d 269. 4 : If, on the other hand, he is bathe diasgod with miscon- .. duct in the jury room, constituting misbehavior in. the presence of the Court, the Court in Carlson said that “this charge must be prosecuted on notice, and under Rule 42(b) the.notice ‘shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such’”. 24 Then specifically directing itself to a situation exactly opposite to that presented by. this- “ease, the Court said at page 216: ' “If the charge’ of criminal sunteaiot j is that the witness declined:to answer the questions ‘upon the pretended ground that the answers would tend to_ incriminate him, this ‘¢laim of. privilege being ad-- vanced’ in bad faith, then (assuming that such con- - duct might be deemed misbehavior in. the presence of the court within ‘the meaning of\ 18° U.S.C. *§$401(1) the required notice under. Rule 42(b) would have to describe the alleged misbehaviors in order that the witness, ‘in preparing his defense to the — © charge, may direct his evidence to the issue of his © - good faith in claiming thie, privilege.” tt is. respectfully submitted that this _procedure cat 3 lined ‘in ‘the Carlson case is obligatory in a proceeding Such as presented by this case and becatse not followed the proceedings here are vitiated. . | Especially applicable here is -the. language of this Court ie in Re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 275 Ba ae 4 “Except for a: narrowly ae category of con- tempts: due pyocess of law as explained in. the Céoke ease [357 U. .S.. 517} requires that one charged’ with contempt of. court ‘be advised of the charges against ‘him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have. the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf, either by way. of defense or explana/ _. tion. The narrow exception to- these due process s agg action silky: includes only charges of misconduft, in open cofrt, in the presence of the judge, w ch _ disturbs the court’s business, where all of the essen- tial elements of the misconduct are under the/ eye . of the court, are. actually observed by the -court, ‘and. where immediate punishment is essential to . prevent ‘demoralization of the court’s aut many sab the public”. fee ¢ that his rights and privileges can be avoided. — i _ The conflict between the decision here and those of other Courts .of Appeal and with decisions of this Court is. clear. Moreover there has been such a departure here - o from the usual course of judicial proceedings, as to call - for the exercise of. this Court’s power of supervision. CG Petitioner ‘Could Not Be Compelled To —_ : ‘The Stand. . The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had , the right to compel petitioner to take the stand and to - answer questions. It specifically held that the proceed- ing was not a criminal proceeding but merely one which was “ancillary to the grand jury investigation”. The Court of Appeals also held that to prevent the District Court “from inquiring of the witness whether he is wiJling to answer questions, would.frustrate the proper | operations of the grand jury * * *” and that the “Court is merely being advised as-to what had already happened before the’ grand jury”. This latter holding of the Court Po oe o of Appeals is directly contrary to ‘the holding of this Court in Ex Parte Savin, 131 U. 8. 267, 277, where Mr. Justice’ Harlan said: , “It is true that the mode proceeding for con- tempt is not the same in evéry case of such mis- behavior. Where the contempt is committed directly . under. the eye or within the view of the court,: it may proceed * upon its own knowledge of the facts, and punish the offender, without further proof, and’ - without issue or trial in‘any form’ * * *; whereas, in. cases of misbehavior of ‘which the Judge cannot have such personal knowledge, and is informed - thereof only by the confession of the party, or by the testimony under oath of others, the _ proper practice is, by rule or other- process, to require the offender to = and show cause why he should not be puhished.” rae - | Here the District Court knew of the scale only through the confession of the petitioner obtained ‘in viola- tion of his fundamental rights in a criminal case*® not to _ take the stand and testify and through the testimony of others; namely, the Grand Jury stenographer. Under Ex Parte Savin, supra, and Rule 42(b) of the Rules of . Criminal Procedure, the practice followed was s consequently invalid and improper. ; With ‘respect to the first ground stated by the Court of Appeals for the rejection of petitioner’s contention that he should not have been compelled to take the stand before the District Court, namely, that the proceeding was not a criminal proceeding and merely ancillary to the grand jury investigation, the fact is that from the moment peti- ‘tioner-was returned to the District Court after having refused for the second time to answer the “questions put ~6. Even though criminal contempts are held by this Court not to . ‘be crimes within the Constitutional guaranty of trial by jury (Green v. United States, 2 L. ed. 2d 672), a criminal contempt. proceeding, must be a criminal case. See Holmes, J. in Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610, 61. : to him: before the grand jury, he Was in : jeopardy of his. ie liberty and the proceeding was, therefore, criminal in . Mature. ‘Whether ‘ancillary or plenary, or merely. as the _ District Court thought, an extension of the grand jury. proceeding, jeopardy for the petitioner . existed and the - proceeding was criminal in nature.’ This Court has held that in proceedings which resalt 3 in, a judgment of criminal contempt, the defendant is: entitled to the rights accorded to the defendant in criminal cases. Cammer v. U. S., 350 U. S. 399, 403; Re Michael, 326 U. S. 224; Nye v. U. S., 313 U. S. 33; Michaelson v. U. S., 266 . U.S. 42,: 66; Gir y. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, “a... : And, as pointed out in UV. s. v. Lawn, 115 F. Supp. | 674; 677, it is in a criminal case “a clear. violation of a defendant’s right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of ‘the Constitution to compel him to take the. stand, testify and. produce his records, relat- ing to the matter with: whieh he is charged * * * it would invalidate the trial. * * * Title 18 U.S. C. A.,, §3481 makes a defendant a competent witness at: his own “ request. It is thus improper to call him as a witness with- out a- request on his part”. {Emphasis in original] Gompers v. Buck’s Stove € Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 444. - See U. S. v. Scully, 225 F. 2d 113 (C. A. 2). Thus this casé presents basic and important questions | of constitutional law affecting criminal contempt proceed. . ings and requiring the vindication and re-establishment of Rule 42(b). "Tt is clear: that here not even the minimal - procedural requirements of Rule 42(b) were observed and . Rule 42(a) was misapplied and abused. | D. The Secrecy Of The Proceedings. A vital defect in the proceedings in the District Court was the surrounding secrecy. 7. See footnote 6 supra. re ‘While the record does not show that the courtroom was _ cleared by the Court 6n April 8,.1957 (the day conviction. — was had) that it was.cannot factually be disputed and the Court of Appeals assumed such fact (R. 62). And the prosecutor on April 5, 1957 said to the Court. that it is the procedure to clear. the courtroom (R. 6). In Re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, this Court held that a. contempt proceeding and sentence must be -publiec. : The Court of Appeals (R. 62) rejected this contention on the ground it had not been raised in the District Court. The right ‘to a “publie trial being so fundamental, the infringement thereof cannot, it is respectfully submitted, be overlooked on appeal or in this Court, because of | _counsel’s failure’ to raise it in the trial court. ASST Ue POINT IV The sentence was an abuse of discretion and improper. — : In this case petitioner received a sentence of one year _ and three months. The Court of Appeals held that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, that it was not an abuse of discretion and that the Court could impose a coercive sentence in a criminal contempt proceeding without a purge clause. 7 The Court of’ Appeals here held the sentence proper in view of the sentences in Warring v. Huff, 122 F. 2d / 641 (App. D. C.) [two consecutive sentences of thirteen months] ; Conley v. U. S., 59 F. 2d 929 (C. A., 8) [two years]; and Hill v. U. S., 300 U. S. 105 [eoneurrent sén- tences of a year and a day and two years]. : - On the other hand the Court of Appeals ignored aiiah lesser sentences imposed by District Courts in its circuit upon recalcitrant grand jury witnesses. In U. S. v. Gordun, 236 F. 2d 916, the sentence-was six months; in JU. S.. ve [™ 2 3Z Courtney, 236 F. 2d 921—three months; in U. 8. v. Trock, - 232 F. 2d 839—four months; in U. S. v. Curcio, 234 F. 2d- 470—six months; and } in U.S. v. oe 65 F. 2d 394— . sixty days. | Both courts below omitted to consider as an ‘ean in - determining the sentence the penalty attached to the sub- ys stantive criminal. offense. ‘involved. Here, under Section 32 ‘of the Interstate Commerce Act, the only punishment - which could be imposed upon petitioner is a fine. This _ failure to consider the quantum of the penalty attached . - ' to the substantive criminal offenses is in cet wi Moore v. U: S., 150 F. 2d 323 (C. ‘A. 10). : ‘The United: States Attorney did not request a specific — sentence but insisted’ upon a strong coercive sentence, as he characterized it, and this sentence was the result. This Court has held that the sentence in a criminal - contempt proceeding must: be punitive and not coercive. U. S. v..United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 302. On the - other. hand, if the sentence could be coercive, a purge clause necessarily had to be included which was not done here. / The sentence was, therefore, an abuse of discretion and improper. - CONCLUSION . The judgment of conviction of petitioner for — criminal contempt should be reversed and his ac: - /quittal directed. 3 ; Respectfully submitted, Myron L. Searmo and : 3 J. Bertram WEGMAN, ’ . 5 oe Counsel for Petitioner. Myron L. SHaprro, : Of Counsel. 33 APPENDIX TO BRIEF Statutes ond -Rules Motor Carriers ‘Act, Immunity Provision, .Title 49, US.C., Ch. 8, Section 305(d) : “So far as may bé necessary for the purposes of this chapter, the Commission’ and the members and © * examiners\thereof and joint boards shall have the same power to administer oaths, and require by subpena the attendance and testimony of witnesses _ and the production of books, papers, tariffs, con- tracts, agreements, and documents, and to take testimony by. deposition, relating to any matter under investigation, as the Commission has in .a matter arising under chapter 1 of this title; and any person subpenaed or testifying in connection with any matter under investigation under thiS | chapter shall have the same rights, privileges, and -unmunities and be subject to the same duties, lia- | bilities, and penalties as though such matter arose ‘under chapter 1-of this title, unless otherwise pro- vided in this chapter.” Interstate Commerce Act, Temunity Provision, Tifle 49, U.S.C., Ch. 2, Section 46: “No person shall be excused from attending and — testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and doéeuments before the Interstate Commerce* Commission, or in obedience _ to .the subpoena of the commission, whether such subpdina be signed-or issued by one or more com- ‘Missioners, or in any cause or proceeding, criminal ‘or otherwise, based upon or growing out of’ any alleged violation of chapter 1 of this title on the ground or for the reason ‘that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of 34 ve him, may tend’ io criminaté him or subject him to - a penalty or forfeiture. t no person shall be | prosecuted or subjected to\any penalty .or for-— feiture for or on account of any transaction, mat; | ter or thing, concerning which hé may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before © said commission, or-in obedience to its subpoena, _ or the subpoena of ‘either of them, or in any such case or proceeding: Provided, That no person so testifying shall’ be exempt from prosecution and \ punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.. Any person. who shall neglect or refuse to attend . and testify, or to answer any lawful inquiry, or to produce books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agree- ’ ments, and documents, if in his power to do so,.in obedidnce to the subpoena or lawful requirement of the commission shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof by a eourt of competent jurisdiction shall be punished by fine not less than ‘ $100 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for . -not.more than one year or by both ‘such fine and imprisonment.” , Federal Trade Commission Act, Immunity Provision, ‘Title 15, U.S.C., Ch. 2, Section 49: “For the purposes of sections 41-46 and 47-58 of this title the commissioi,” * * * shall have power to require by subpena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of. all - such documentary evidence relating | to any matter under investigation. * * * No person shall be excused’ from attending and testifying or from producing documentary evidence before the commission or in obedience. to the sub- pena of the commission on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to crimi- nate” him or subject him to a‘ penalty or forfeiture. But no natural person shall be prosecuted or sub- ) 2. “Ov jected to any penalty. or forfeiture for or on ac- count of any transaction, matter, or thing con- 4 cerning which.he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the commission in obedience*to a subpoena issued ‘by laa batten ag Securities Act. of 1933, Immunity Provision, — 15, ‘USC, of this Act * * * and regulations and orders prescribed thereunder. ; “(3) For the purpose of obtaining information under this ‘subsection, the President may by sub- pena require any person to appear and testify or ' 40 appear and: ‘produce comments, or ‘both, at any ‘designated ieee. id Ss (6) No person shall be man from ao and ‘testifying or producing documents or . from complying with any other requirement under this ‘subsection because of. his privilege against self- incrimination, but the immunity provisions of ‘the. Compulsory Testinony Act of February 11,1893, ‘shall apply with respect to any individual | who apectenty. ¢ claims-such privilege.” \ . rt : ) a | Motor Carriers Act, Title 49, U.S.C. §322. + “Any person knowingly and willfully violating any provision of this chapter, or any rule, regula- _ tion, requirement, or order thereunder, or any term - or condition of any certificate,*permit, or license, for which a penalty is- not otherwise herein pro- vided, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $100 for the first offense and not more than $500 for any subsequent offense. Each day of such violation shall constitute a separate offense. * * * : * * ae ase ae eal os Pes) Any person, whether carrier, shipper, con- signee” or broker, or any officer, employee, agent, or representative thereof, who shall knowingly offer, grant, or give, or solicit, accept, or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in viola- tion of any provision of this chapter, or who. by means of any false statement or representation or ‘by the use of any false or fictitious bill, bill of. lad- | ing, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate; . affidavit, deposition, lease, or bill of sale, or by any _ other means or device, shall knowingly and willfuly assist, suffer or permit any person or persons, natural or: artificialy to obtain transportation of passengers or property subject to this chapter for less than the applicable rate, fare, or charge, or who shall knowingly and willfully by any such: means or otherwise:fraudulenty seek to evade or _ defeat regulation as in this chapter provided -for ie motor carrier or brokers, shall be deemed guilty of * a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be fined ~ not more than $500. for the first offense and not. more than $2,000 for any ‘subsequent offense. “(d) Any special agent, accountant, or examiner who knowingly and. willfully. divulges -any fact or © information which may/comé to his knowledge dur- ing the course of any examination or inspection | 42 R : PS Sle ee Se ae ae —- made under authority of section 320 of this title,- except as he may be directed. by the Commission or by a, court or judge théreof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject, upon conviction in any eourt -of.the United States of competent | jurisdiction, to a fine of: not more than $500 or . imprisonment for not exceeding Six months, or: both.” °..-; | United States’ Constitution, “Amendments V, VI and V HiT. ; — : eats e . Vv kectals ou “No person * * * shall be compelled in’ any ~ criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor. be .deprived | of life, eae or property, . without due process of law;” ¥ $ ? F oo. . “VI ‘ ’ “Tn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public-trtal, by an impartial jury * * * and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and _ to have the eg yu Counsel for his defense ;” wm “Excessive — bail salt not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” srt Commodity Exchange Act, Title 7, GEC. (1946 ed. TSS. - “For the purpose of securing effective enforce- ment of the provisions of this chapter, the pro- Ces ——— 4g visions, including penalties, of sections 12 and 46: 48 of Title 49, as amended and supplemented relat- ing to the attendance and testimony of witnesses, : the production of. documentary evidence, and the .lImmunity. of witnesses, are made applicable to the power, jurisdiction, and authority of. the Secretary of Agriculture, the said -commission, and said referee in proceedings under this chapter, and to persons subject to its ees. | Immunity Act of 1954, Title 18, USC, $3486. | «(e) Whenever in the judgment of a United States dttorney the testimony of any witness stn ley _in any case- or proceeding before any grand jury or court: of the United States involving any inter-. ‘ference with or endangering of, or any plans or attempts to. interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States by treason, sabotage, espionage, sedition, seditious conspiracy, * * * is necessary to the public interest, he,.upon’” the approval of the Attorney General, shall make _ application to the court that the witness shall be — instructed to testify or produce evidence subject to the provisions of this section, and upon order of. the court such witness shall not. be excused from testifying or froni producing books, papers, or other’ evidence on the ground that the testimony or: evi- - dence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture.” a “SS Emergency y Price Control Act, 56 Stat. 30 (1942) §202. “(a) The Administrator is authorized to make such studies and investigations, and.to obtain. such - information as he deems necessary or proper to assist him-in prescribing any regulation or order — under this Act or in the administration and enforce- "ment of this Act dnd regulations, sah and price - schedules thereunder. vt / 44 . | 2 7 eee, “(e) For the purpose of obtaining any -informa- tion under subsection (a), the Administrator may by subpena require any other person to appear and and testify pr to appear. and’ produce documents, or both,.at any “designated” place. 25 a cy g) No person shall be excused from complying’ with any requirements under this section because of his privilege. against -self-incrimination, but the immunity provisions of the Compulsory Testimony Act of ‘February 11; 1893 * *-* shall apply -with respect to any individual who apecihenity. claims - such priv legs." : Pelee Degosit hecieuncs Corporation Law, Title 12,_: US.C., $1820. | “(a) The Board of Directors shall stsiatates the . affairs of the Corporation fairly and impartially 7 and without discrimination. * * * . “¢c) For the purpose of any hearing ree this | ' chapter, the Board of Directors, any member thereof — or any person designated by the Board of Directors to conduct any ~ such hearing, is: empowered . to ” * . administer oaths and affirmations, subpena any _officer or employee.of the insured Naik compel his “attendance, take evidence, * * *. For the .purpose of any hearing, examination, or investigation under * this chapter, the Board of Directors may apply to _ any judge or clerk of any court of the United States: * * * to issue a subpoena commanding each person . to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony * * * at a time and place/and before a person therein specified. * * * . “(d) No/person shall be excused from attending and testifyi ing or from, producing books, records, or ‘ other papers in obedience to a_ subjpena. issued ' under the authority of this chapter on the ground 45, ‘that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of- him may tend-to incriminate . him or subject him to penalty, or AOREAETEER pd eka Industrial Alcohol Act, 53 Stat. 363, $3119, Title 26, U.S.C. (1946. Ed.), now §5315, Title 26, U.S.C. | “No peyson shall be excused, on the ground that ‘ it. may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a pen nalty or forfeiture, from attending and testifying, or producing books, papers, documents, and other | ev idence in obedience to a subpena of. any court in, any suit or proceeding based upon or growing out ® of any alleged violation of this OE MTs @ Civil Aeronautics Act, Title 49, U.S.C., Ch. 9, §644(1). “(i) No person: shall be excused from attending and testifying, or from producing books, papers, or -. documents before the Board, or in obedience to the subpena of the Board, or in any cause. or proceed- _ ing, criminal or otherwise * * .* on the ground, or for the reason, that the testimony or evidence, docu-. mentary or otherwise, required of’ him may tend to incriminate him. or “subject him to a penalty or for- feiture; ees Export. Controls Act, Title 50, App; U.S.C. §2026 _ (a), (b). | itis “(a).To the extent neeessary or appropriate to the enforcement of this Act the head. of any department or agency exercising any functions here- under (and officers or employees of such department . or agency -specifically designated by the head there- of) may Anake such investigations and obtain such information from, require such reports or the keep- / ing of such records by, make such inspection of the books, _reeords, and other writings, premises, or “ property of, and take the sworn testimony of, any person. In addition, such officers or employees may. 46 _administer oaths or affirmations, and may by sub-_ pena require any ee to appear and testify ahtihiye® «(p) No person shall be excused from complying with dny requirements under this’ section because of his privilege against self-incrimination, but the immunity provisions of the Compulsory Testimony Act of February 11, 1893. (27 Stat. 443) shall apply : with respect. to. any individual ‘who specifically claims such privilege.” . Délenes Production Act’ of 1950, Title 50, U.S.C., » APP. $2155. “(a) The President shall be entitled, while this Act is in effect and for a period of two vears there- after, by regulation, subpena, or otherwise, to . obtain such information from, require such reports and the keeping of:such records by, make such | inspection of the books, reeords, and other writings, premises or property of, and take the. sworn testi- .. mony of, and administer oaths and affirmations to, any ‘person as may be necessary or appropriate, in his dis¢cretion, to the enforcement or the adminis- ‘tration of this Act and the regulations- or order ‘issued thereunder. eee “(b) No-person shall be excused from complying with any requirements under this section or from attending ‘and testifying or from producing books, ‘papers, documents, and other evidence in obedience . to a subpena before any grand jury or in any court or administrative proceeding based upon or grow- _ ing out of any. alleged violation of this Act on=the - ground that the testimony or evidence, documen- tary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him~ or~ subject him to penalty or forfeiture ;” oe See ek ae | ) . atc ‘ ‘War onl Defense Contract Acts of 1951, Title 50, App., .S.C., §1152(a) (4). , “(4) For the purpose of obtaining any informa- tion, verifying any report required, or making any. _ investigation pursuant to-paragraph (3), the Presi- dent may administer oaths and affirmations, and - may require by subpena or otherwise the attendance and testimony by witnesses. * * * No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing any books, records, or other nice td evidence or certified copies. thereof or physical evi- dence in obedience to any such subpena, or in any action or proceeding which. may be instituted under this subsection, on the ground that the testimony or .evidence, documentary or. otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or ei eaatued j 6 3 Second War Powers Act, Title 50, App., USC §643a. “For the purpose of obtaining any information | or making any inspection or audit pursuant to section 1301, any agency acting hereunder, or the.. Chairman of the War Production Board, as the case may be, may administer oaths and affirmations and . may require by subpena or otherwise the attend- ance and testimony of witnesses..* * .* No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or - from .producing any books, records, or other docu- mentary evidence or ‘certified copies thereof or " phy sical evidence in obedience to any such subpena, or in any action or proceeding which may be insti- tuted under this section, on .the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, . | required of him may tend to incriminate him or — subject to a penalty or by saa: I . Inv estment Advisers Act, Wii ‘15, U.S.C., §$80b-9. | wis “(d) No, person shall be excused from attending and testifying. or Y a producing books, papers, eee & evrrespondence, memoranda, contracts, agre¢ or other records and documents before the || mission,. or in obedience to the’ subpena of the Commission or any member thereof or apy officer designated by it, or in any cause or proceeding instituted ‘by the’ Commission, on. the ground that - the testimony or evidence, documentary or _other- . wisé, required of him may tend to incriminate him ‘ or subject him to a penalty cr forfeiture ;”. Investment Companies Aci, Title 15; U.S.C., §80a-41. “(d) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or -from producing books, papers, correspondence, ‘memoranda, contracts, agreements, . or other records and documents before the. Com- ‘mission, or in obedience, to’ the subpena of the Comniission,.or any member thereof or any. officer designated by it,.or in -any cause or proceeding’ instituted by the Commission; - -on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or other-' > wise, required of him may tend. to incriminate him. or subject him to a. penalty or forfeiture;” — - Public Utility Holding Company Act, Title ‘4K, USC, §79r. +) re “(e) No person ghia be ectoused. fan attending ~~. and testifying or from. producing books, papers, _.eprrespondence, memoranda, contracts, agreements, vor other records and documents before “the Com- mission, of in obedience to thé subpena of. the Commission or any member: thereof or any officer, ‘designated by -it, or in. any: cause or “proceeding. - instituted by, the Commission, on the ground ‘that the testimony or evidence, documentary :or. other-. - “wise, required of him may tend to. incriminate him or subject him toa penalty or forfeiture ;” 49 ai Securities Exchange Act, Title 15, US Cy. $78u. “(d) No ‘person shall be‘exeused from attending | oa testifying or. from producing books, papers, con-- tracts, agreements, an ther records und’ docu- ments ‘before the Commis n, or in obedience to the ‘subpena of -the Commission or any member thereof or any offic®,designated by it, or in any cause or _ proceeding institabed by the. Commission, ‘on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required by: him may tend to inecrim- inate him. or subject him toa penalty or forfeiture;” Shipping Act ‘of 1916, Title 46, US.C., $827. _“No person shall be excused, on ‘the ground that it _ may terd to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, from attending and testifying, .or producing books, papers, documents, and other _ ‘evidence, in obedience t6 the subpena of the .Com- ’ mission or of-any court in amy proceeding based upon or growing out of any alleged vielation of. this chapter;” Narcoties Control Act, Title 18, US.C., $1406. - “Whenever in the judgment of a United States” . attorney the ‘testimony of any w itness, or the pro- duction of. books, papers, or other evidence by any ‘witness; in any case or proceeding before any grand \ jury .or court of the United States involving any violation of—* * * is necessary to: the public inter-— . est, he, upon ‘the approval of the Attorney General,. . shall make application to the court that: the witness shall. be instructed to téestify * **. But no such © witness shall be prosecuted or subjected to any pen-. _alty or forfeiture for or on account of any trans- action, matter, or thing concerning which he is com- ~ pelled, after having. claimed his privilege against — _ self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, 50 nor shall testimony so compelled be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding. * * * against. him in any court. Natural Gas 4a. Title 15, USC, 717m. _ “th) No person shall. be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, cor- respondence, memoranda, contracts, agreements, or other records and documents before the Commis- ; sion, or in obedience to the subpena of the Com- mission or any member thereof or any officer desig-. nated by it, or in any cause or proceeding insti- tuted by the Commission, on, the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary - or -otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or povehed _ Federal Copsitiniidtions act, 47 U. S. C., §409 ()): No person’ shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing: books, papers, sched- —-s ules of. charges, contracts, agreements, and docu- ~ ments before the Commission, or in obedience 40 the subpena of the Commission, eget wal sub- -_. pena be signed or issued by one or e commis- sioners, or in any cause. or procééding, criminal or , - otherwise, based upon ‘or growing out of any alleged violation of this ¢hapter, or of any amendments thereto, on the ground or for the reason ‘that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may, tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty of forfeiture;. but no individual shall be prosecuted .or. subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, . matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence.” ars --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0132%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.