Brief for the United States — Yellin v. United States

Supreme Court brief1963

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Questions a ee eee ue

Statutes and rules nidiued. .. ap ey he hee

‘Statement... SFP er rere >

Summary of ome... Ne, co

DU cf: goes

I. The Committee's inv estigation of C om-

munist activity in basic industry was

‘pursuant to a valid legislative purpose

and did not violate the First Amend-

. ment-

A. The gov ernment: al interests at

stake outweigh the -individual

' interests in _ these ‘particular

r adil circumstances: Auree as

B. The trial court properly excluded

expert testimony concerning |

| the First. Amendment issue _-

II. The statute under which petitioner was

convi¢ted is not unconstitutionally .

vague... .__- ,

_ ITI. The Committeg’s rules did not “require

the Committee to grant petitioner’ 8

request | to. appear at - an executive

| session ._.._.----_._. a

_ FV. The questions which were . the basis for

Counts. 2 and 4 were not too vague to

support the indictment. - wer eiae

Conclusion... ---.....----- Peas ake eens 2

29022421 a

why — _

| 16

' CITATIONS

Cases: ; ) ( Page ©

American Communications Ass’n v. nn s

yf. 5 eee ae 32

Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. Ss. 109. yes . 16,

12, ¥9,-21, 22, 28, 24, 27, 32, 33, 35, 41,

s. “42, 45.

Braden v. United States, 365 U.S 431__- ae = — oo

eae . 19, 22, 23, 32, 33, 35

Carlen Vv. Senin 342 U.S. 524..._:_-.__-:: . 3

‘Dennis v. United States; 341 U.S. 494_______- . 2

Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456_.._._._ 42, 43

Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U.S. 22...-...--.--- ‘40

United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374... __. 40

Sacher v. United States, 356 U.S. 576_ . Ji

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178____- 34

W ilkinson v. United States, 365 US. 399. 17,

SA ' * 19, 22, 23, 24, 32,33, 35

Constitution: : ; :

First Amendmnt_- 4, UL, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 31, 32, 35

‘Sixth Amendme:...----. 2-2. . - 20,39, 40 -

Statute and rules:

- Subversive Activities: Control. Act of 1950,

Title I, § 2, 64 Stat. 987-989..-.._. | 32

2 U.S:C. 192... ; 2, 19, 33, 40, 43

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7

Oe .:. | 20, 39, 40; 41

Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

States Rule 40(1)(d)(2)_-_.- Serena: ee F

Congressional material: ~ :

Hearings before the Committee on Un-Ameri-

can Activities, House of Representatives,

* _ 85th Cong., 2d Sess., entitled “Investigation

of Communist Infiltration and Propaganda

Activities in Basic Industry (Gary, Inc.,

|g PN a 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10/11, 14, 43, 44

Congressional material—Continued

Rules of Procedure, House Committee on Un-

- American Activities, Rule IV-A__ 2, 19, 20, 37, 38

Rules of the House of Representatives, as

amended by the Legislative Reorganization, ~

Act of 1946, Chap. 753, Sec. 121, 60'Stat.:

Rule XI... .--.-.. 2-2 -------- 2,19, 34, 35

Rule XI, Sec. 26(m)_......_.........- 2,38

Page

In he Supreme Court oh fhe whit Bites

OcTOBER TERM, 1961 ma

No. 477.

Epwarb YELLIN, PETITIONER

> | Ny ae / v’. :

Unitep Staves or AMERICA 2 - the

ns ' z ‘ “ ¢ 7

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS: i THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

“a ; |

» OPINION BELOW

The oe. ‘of the court. of appeals i is id at

987 F. 2d 203. i ay: a ee ,

JURISDICTION * .

. The judgment of the court. of appeals was entered

’ on February 16, 1961, and a petition for rehearing

was denied on April 3, 1961. On April 21, 1961,

Mr. J ustiee Black ‘conte ded the time to file the peti-

_ tion for a writ of certiorari ‘to and including , June |

2 1961. The petition was filed on May 31, 1961 and

certiorari was granted on October 9, 1961 (R. 299). . as

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 23 aa |

GSC.12554(1). 0 2 a. |

fl)

eee enireman

QuEsriows PRESENTED nee;

as ‘,

House Un-American Activities Committee concerning

- was pursuantto. ayalid legislative purpose consist-

ent with petitioner’ s rights under the: First J endment. 7

* 2. ‘Whether the trial “eourt: ‘erred, i in ‘exchiding ex:

~pert. testimony on the factors which should be con-'

pe under the First Ameridment. \ |

- . 8. Whether petitioner was. convit cted under a stat-

ute which is thednstitutionally vague... \o- ee

\ oo Whether the_ Committee siobited, oe own rules

eae refusing to question petitioner i in m exeeyhive

STATUTES AND| RULES INVOLVED — ah

sey Seetion 192 of “Title 2, USC. (RS.

Be eaerEKE and the ele portions of als

‘in petitioner’ s brief at pages a4. |

. | “STATEMENT. aa te ot ie

Petitioner’ “was charged in‘ a‘ five- count: indictment

with having refused, in violation of. 2 U8. C. 192, to \ }

sani ansyer, questions \pertinent’ to” the matter under. in-

quiry asked himi by, the -Committee gn. Sey voor

* Activities ‘of the Hotise of Representatives. / Count 5 ~

7 was distfissed on motion of, the: government (R. a8). -

‘ tioner r guilty - as” “char rged ‘in Counts ‘1,2, 3, ‘and 4,

' Upon a trial without a jury, the court found peti-. -~

pie. ‘The c ase mens a sentence of one vear on each ch count,

; ae —_ 1. “Whether the questioning of | titioner by the ae

his: membership . in the Communist | Party and the oo.

Party s program of “eolonization”? of the oe and

se ~ sidered by the court in determining petitiqner” Ss rights ees.

7 The

‘the: mone sinning: pr a. _o of $250

(RV 116-118). The court i es uae the. con-

viction. : | v .

The pertinent facts. may be summarized as follows:

pe ommittee on Un-American — Activities ithe

asséd a resolution on January 15, 1958, providing

that hearings would be held:in Gary, Indiana,’ ‘to i inquire’

; into (Hearings,’ p: 1956) : :

1: The éxtent, character, and ‘dijo ts. of Com:

’ ~‘munist infiltration and Communist Party prop»

" aganda activities ‘in basi¢ industry_i in the Gary,

Indiana,.area, the legislative purpose ‘being to’

obtain ° additional informationsfor use by the

Committee in its. consideration of Section 16

_ Of H.R. 9352,. relating to the propos amend- °

ment .of ‘Section 4 ‘of the Comm ‘ist’ Control.

53 Act of 1954, prescribing. a penalty for know-.

_ ingly and willfully becoming or remaining a

member -of the. Communist Party with -knowl-,

edge of the. , Purpose or objective thereof; arid —

for the additional legislative purpose of adding |

_. to’ the Committee’ s- overall ‘knowledge on the ~

a. subjeet=s0 tha Congress maybe kept. informed

and thus prepared to enact remedial legisfation

in the. national, defense. and. for internal -secu-

-Tity’ ‘when ang f the exigencies of the situation

Cis i "require __ nee

2. Executio “by” decal agencies:

| _coneer red. of Public Law 637, of the: isl Con- >

—

-1 Hearings before the Cor mittée on Un- heinhiitg Actiti ies,

House of Representatives, 45th Cong., zd Sess., entitled “In-

. _ Yeatigation of Communist Infiltration and Propaganda “Activi-

ties in Basie Industry (Gary, Ind., Areax“ This document,

‘which is hereinafter _teferretl to fo as-“Hearings,” constitutes

Gov. Ex. 15. . 3 : Leer aa

i ~ designate.

| subcommittee was

A eee vod ee!

gress known as the “Communist Control Act -

of 1954’’, relating to the eligibility to exercise .

the’ rights and privileges provided under the

National Labor Relations Act of labor organi-

Bee zations determined ‘by. the Subversive Activities

Control Board. to be Commynist-infiltrated or-

ganizations. The legislative purpose is to .as-

‘sist Congress in appraising the administration

of the Communist Control Act of 1954 and

* to, enact - such amendments ‘thereto as the :

exigencies of the situation require.

inted to ‘eonduct this hearing, send

_ Petitioner was arc ‘appear. ‘a the hear-

_ ings in Gary on February 10, 1958. His counsel sent

a telegram to. the Committee’s. counsel on February 6, 6,

1958; asking that petitioner be questioned in execu-

| tive sersion because “[t]estimony needed. for legisla- )

3, Any other matter within the juriadiction s

f the Committee which it or any subeommittee

tive, purpases can be secured in executive session —

_without exposing: witnesses to publicity” ( Def. Ex. 1).

‘On that same date, the Staff Director of the Commit- °

tee telegraphed. petitioner Oying the request. — nie

|, Sas eae

Public. hearings were held in Gary, Indiana, by a

aubeommittee on February 10 and 11, .1958.. At-the

opening of the hearing on February 10; the chairman

of the Committee, in petitioner’s presence. (Hearings,

p. 1977), read the abave-qnoted . resolution. of the

: Committee authorizing the hearings and explained. at .

lencth the purpose of tl e hearings in Gary (id. at

1955-1957). ‘The’ elipirn stated, inter alia, that the

‘in Gary. for’ the — of re- | ;

+ oie ee *

rat

-y 5

ceiving testimony concerning’ Communist techriiques

and tactics of infiltration and the extent, character,

and objects: of Communist Party propaganda activi- ©

ties in basic industries”; that such an inquiry had

great importance to‘ interhal security; that the hear-

ing was intended as part of the Committee’s ‘“sur-

veillance over existing security legislation,’ including .

the Internal Security Aet, the Foreign Agents Regis-

tration Act, the Communist Control Act, and various

espionage statutes ‘‘for the purpose of recommend-

: ing any needed ‘legislative amendments”’; and that the |

Commitfeé hoped to secure information useful in its ©

consideration of H.R. 9352, an omnibus bill to amend

the Internal Sécurity. Act of 1950, which was pending

before it (id. at pp. 1956-1957). a 2

‘Petitioner was present (Hearings, p. 1976) at the

~~ —~time_Joln Lautner, the-first_witness at the hearing, —

testified (id. at pp. 1958-1974). Mr. Lautner, who |

was ‘an- organizer and high functionary in the Com- °°

munist. Party from 1930. to 1950, testified that in

1945 the Party condemned the “revisionist” policies

which it had followed under its ‘former leader, Earl

“Browder, and returned) to the basic principles of

!Marsism-Lemaism ; thaf, after the Party was recon-

- stituted, it re-established its policy of concentration

in bas'> industry;.that as a result of this policy

“eolonization™ was begun, and Party “colonizers’’ were

sent to.all parts of the country-to coordinate Party

me _ work in basic industries: including the steel industry

Ud, at pp. 1964-1965) ; and that these colonizers were 4

Se geuerally young Party, members from colleges and —

universities who left ‘to become “professional revo-:

‘ =. ose, |

—

/ - |

6 .

aa a) \ ets, : i |

lutionaries\’ €id. at p..1967): Mr. Lautner further

testified ‘that (id. at p. 1968) : 3

Lenin said: ;

‘It is necessary to be dhe to withstand all

_ this, to agree to'any and every sacrifice, and)...

= 'éven—if need be—to resort to all sorts of de-

i » Vices, manoeuvres, dnd illegal. methods, to

evasion and subterfuge, i in order to penetr ate

into the trade unions, to remain in them, and.

to carry-on Communist work i in them at all

‘eosts.”’ , 7

° This is the underlying prinéiple’ on the: hasis |

of which: these people [the colonizers] will deny

their name, will deny their education, will -

‘deny ever ything,, because that denial furthers —

‘the aims and object ives of the Communist °

‘Party. It would be a liability’ for him ‘to be

a worker in the mill‘if he has a college de--

gree; it wouldn’t look ,good. ,There would be

immediately a suspicion of an ulterior motive

in that,..so thev are carrying out a Leninist

policy when they do, that.

Petitioner, the second witness appearing on Febru-

vary. 10, was questioned’ immediately after Lautner

(Hearings, pp. 1974-1988). Petitioner answered pre-

liminary @iiestions as to. his name and present resi-

‘dence. ‘When the Committee chairman refuséd to

allow petitioner's counsel to read into the record the

telegrams between himself. and the Committee, peti-

tioner’s counsel stat ge he ‘would be satisfied if

the record showed that the exchange of telegrams

tad octurred (id. at }p. 1974). Petitioner then re-

fused to answer the some “Where did you feside.

prior to’ ‘September, 9571" (Count 1) (id. af. pp. 7 / .

~ 1974-1975). He nan as his grourids for ‘refusing «

v ° : i

. 5

to answer that the First’ Amendment forbids Con-

gress to investigate opinions and beliefs; that the

authorizing resolution. of the Committee is so vague

that it might deprive him of due process of law; and

that’ the question was not pertinent to any legislation

(id. at pp. otb-1977). After pe titioner was directed

to answer the question, he explicitly stated that he

relied/on the First Amendment and not the privilege

against self-incrimination (id. at p. 1977). Appar-

_ently i in_doubt Whether petitioner was challenging the

pertinency of the question to the subject under in-

quiry, the couimittee counsel ascertained that peti-”

tioner Was present-avhen-the chairman, made his open-,

ing statement which explained the purpose of the

hearing and then stated” (id. at p. 1977):

| ~ This is a hearing whieh involves a subject

~deseribed by the chairman, and it. ‘relates to

Communist Party activities | ‘within the area

of Gary. As far as pertinency of the question

is concerned, as to which you seem to express

some. doubt, it ‘would be impossiblg_for us to

learn anything from you regarding Commu-

nist’ Party activities in this area without

ascertaining whether or not you were here for

a period: of time. =

Fetitione ‘r then was again directed to neni . the

question and: he again refused (id. at p. 1978).

Petitioner. next was asked: ito state his formal edu-

cation. / He refused to answer becaese ‘the question

could serve no legislatiye purpose and. violated’ his

‘First Amendment rights (Hearings, p. 1978). When

-asked whether -he aeay 4 student at the College of the

. ‘= : »

/ . 7 4 .

‘A

‘ p ae ae 4

‘ .

City of New York for several vears. prior to 1948 he

invoked the same grounds and said (ibid.) :

[I]f the committee knows all these things, 1

can't see the purpose or the pertineney of ask- —

ing me what they consider a known fact.

Furthermore, it kind of appears to meas if.

this line of questioning is merely trying to —

create an impression and expose me for the

sake of merely exposing me and not ee to

any valid legislative purpose.

The Committee chairman then assured petitioner that

it was not the purpose of the question to expose him.

‘The Committee received in evidence copies. of peti-

tioner’s. college reeord showing that he transferred

from the College é6f the City of New York to the

University of Michigan and from the College of

Literature, Science and Arts at the University of.

‘Michigan to its ineering Department in 1948

(Hearings, pp. 1979, 1981) and petitioner's ap-

" plication for employment at the Carnegie-IIlinois Steel

- Corporation dated June 23, 1949, whieh left blank

the line asking for the applic ant’s: college educ ation

(sd. at pp. 1982, 1983-1984 ). _ Petitioner refused to

o answer whether his name.was at the bottom of the

latter application, where he was. residing on June 23,

1949, whether he lived at a specified address in Garv

at that time (as the application for employment said),

whether he was: ever employed at the Reo Motor

Company in Lansing, Michigan (the application stated

that petitioner had been-employed at Reo from 1946

. to February 1948), ‘whether he had been employed

by Modern Distributors from February 1948 to April

Ves

ee oe

1948 (as the employment application showed despite

the statement in the University of Michigan records

that he was at the. University from February 1948

until] June 1949), wether he was employed by Iteo

from April 1948 to May 1949 (as the. employment

application alsu said), why he had failed to include

on his employment application his education at the

College of the Cite of New York or the University

vf Michigan, and whether “at the time you sought

that empiovinent in Gary, Indiana, in steel, you aa 8

doing it at the instance or under counseling from the

Communist) Party or leaders in oo

“Party” (id. at pp. 1982-1985). Petitione éfused to

camswer all these qitestions for the same reasons he had

eabaer ~.ateu.

Bw ‘tithoner Wie then asked, ‘*Will you tell the eom-

mittee please,-whether or not incidents came to your

, attention of the colonization of the steel unions in

Gary by. the Cofamunist ‘Party at any time prior to |

September 1937 7" (Count: 2) (Hearings, p. 1985).

When petitioner refused to answer for the sume rea- ;

sons, the Committee counsel again explained the per-

Armency of the question (id, at p. 1986) :

It has been testified here ‘that colonization of

‘voung men in the middle of their educational

courses in industry was: a deep-seated plan of

» the Communist Party: to strengthen itself

~ Within basic industry. The chairman’s opening

statement itidicated that the activities of the

Communist ‘Party within basic’ industries was

the subject of inquiry here.

St ,

Py — ;

* . * % % ne

~ 10 :

‘The statement was made here of the practice ;

of the Communist Party in colonizing industry

at Flint, Michigan; at the University of: Colo-

rado, which, is at Fort Collins, € wlarddo,. where

you now reside; and other places.

In order to understand the full tacties of the

Communist: Party in its operations here in

Gary, it is necessary the committee understand

fully the extent of such practices, the full pur-

| poses of it, and the methods by which it is put

into effect: That is the connective, reasoning

| ‘of the committee in asking the question.

‘On the grounds already stated, petitioner dec'inéd to

answer whether he was a member of the Neafus Club :

of the Communist Party at the University of? Miehi-

gan, whether he | Was acquainted with: Franeis X. T.

4 rowley at the University of Michigan, aml w hether

Crowley. was correct when he testified before the

Committee in 1954 that petitioner Wi AS 3 member with

him of the NeafusClith (id.at p.1987). y

Petitioner refused, for the same reasons, to answer

‘the question; “Were vou a member of the C ommunist

Party on the 23rd day of June, 1949, whieh is the date

of application filed in your name for employment in

» Gary?” (Count 3) i Hearings, p. 1987). He similarly:

refused to answer whether he was active in the Amer-

‘ean Neterans Committee prior to June 1949, ‘and

whether he was acquainted with Edward: Shaffer. of —

Pittsburgh. Petitioner was shown a copy.of the —

Detroit News dated’ Jannary 7, \1949, reporting, that

three students, including Edward Shaffer of Pitts-_

burgh and petitiorer, resigned froin the University of |

b-—Michigan Chapter of the American Veterans Commit-

tee after the Committee in_ its annual eonvention

adopted a resolution calling fer the ouster of members

belonging fe the Communist Party. Petitioner re-

fused to answer whether this report was correct Cid.

af pp. 1987-1988). He then declined to answer, “Will

vou tell the committee. whether or not ity 1957 there

Vere present in any of the: steel unions at Gary, In-

diana,. persons who were known to vou to have ikea.

colonizers: of the Communist Party’? (Count 4) (cd.

Jat p. 1988). Finally, petitioner 1 refused’ to. answer |

three more questions : whether he was a member of the

Communist Party in August 1957; what stand did the

* Party take in Gary regarding the acts of the Soviet

Cnion in Hungary in 1956: and whether he was at the

time of the hearing a niember of the Communist

Party (ibid.). . ;

Latter on February 10, the subcommittee heard the

testimony of Joseph LaF leur, who worked in the steel

‘industry in Gary and had joined the Communist’ Party

at the request of the F.B.T. He discussed at ‘length.

Communist activities in the Gary area and im the steel

industry in particulars Mr. LaFleur deseribed peti-

tioner as one of several well-educated, young Party.

members who had come to Gary to help organize Party

activities in the steel mills (Hearings, pp. 2016-2017).

Subsequently, the ‘Committee asked two. other. wit-

nesses Who worked in the steel industry. whether they -

were acquainted with petitioner. Both refused to

answer this question, as well as numerous other ques-

tions concerning Communist activities, on the a

Of the First Amendment (id. at pp. 2055, 2063).”

"42

-2. At petitioner’s trial, the government 's sole wit-

: ness was Frank S. Tavenner, counse] for the Com-

mittee, who was present at the Gary hearings and

interrogatéd petitioner.: .He testified that the-purpose .

of the hearings was, ‘‘to find. out how serious the Com-

. munist propaganda activities and infiltration were in

-° basie industry, particularly. with ‘regard to the steel

industry in this area’ (R. 18); that the reason that

’ the Committee wanted the information was that it had

held a series ‘of hearings on:this subject in Baltimore,

Youngstown, Ohio, ‘and’ other places; and the Com-

_* mittee was of the opinion that it might, be necessary

to amend various acts of Congress to “tighten up laws

; "with regard to Communist activities in this field’’ (R.

18); and that the Committee considered the steel in-

dustry to be the most important basic industry in the —

country, and Gary, Indiana, was one of. the centers

of the steel industry (R: 25).

. © Tavennér further testified that members of the Com-

mittee iritroduced several bills around the time of these

hearings ‘relating to the internal security field:

H.R. 2369, sponsored by Congr essman Walter, the

- Chairman\of the Committee and of the subcommittee ,

holding the shearings in Gary; to redéfine the, term

| “organize” ‘as used in’ the Smith Act so as to include tS

‘

continuing acts of organizing (R.27); ° - ‘

The Defense Facilities Protection Act of 1959, in-

‘troduced by Congressmai Scherer (who was one of

the members of the ‘subcommittee holding the hear-

ings in Gary), to permit the federal government to

guard strategic defense -fecilities against espionage,

2 sabotage, and other subversion (R. 23) ;

- < . .

Pa 5 > J

J 4

~My :

13 -—

H.R. 935 2, an omnibus bill introduced by Congress-

man Walter to amend the Internal Security Act of

1950 (Gov. Ex. 14; R. 23-24);

- H.R. 8121, a bill-to amend the Subversive Activ-

ities Control Act of 1950 by authoyizing the Secretary.

of ‘Defense to provide: for a security: program with

respect to defense. cont actors. and their en dloyees ;

}

(Gov. Ex. 18; R. 65).

- Tavenner stated ‘at the trial that prior ‘to ‘ealling

PD Naat the Cour mittee. had information that peti-:

tionér was a member of the Communist Party while

cat the University of Michigan in. 1949; that he had

previously attended City College of New York: and

that he had’ filed an application for employment in

1949 at the Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation in ,

Gary, Indiana, in which he failed to set out ‘his col-

lege and university, education i 34-35): Tavenner

testified that. the Committee warited to find out from

_ petitioner what knowledge, he had of the execution of

the Communist Party’s plan to colonize the steel in-

¢.™

. dustry (R. ¢ Ss: .* Didi ea %

On cross-examination, Tavenner st that. it wis

“the practice of the Committee ‘to interview” prospec-

tive witnesses before subpoenaing them “if there is

any chance in the world of obtaining co-operation

from them’ (R. 53). Peti loner Was not: interviewed

since. he was then in ae Tavenner admitted,

_howéver, that 4f petitioner had heen in Gary, he prob-_

ably would. not have been Interviewed, even though»

the Comnitte e did not know whether he would coop-

erate, since the Committee had information that he

Was a member of the Communist Party (R. 53, 58,

semen 62 —

° ond

ail :

mao rai e+ 7 any

Ye ‘ 2 i TAS,

; - ¥ . * ape ° . ; * . 2 aA j ° " ae

ay . : oa gts fa 14 : : * boos

ye. pane er : ialoaiaad: ‘that: the Co wnittee. aia:

_. poenaed petitioner to’ testify with the hope he would

J Tooapernte (R.. 52-54) and, inform the Committee

-.whether. he had concealed -; facts-on- his employ meit: ; oe

aa ~ application ‘“pursuant’'to-a Communist Party plan.to ~

". eolonize [the steel] industry,’ aiid ‘the.extent to ‘which:

that colonization. was progressing” (R.. 53). Taven- exc:

ner ‘explained that the Committee bélieved . that peti- ss

“1 toner, had‘ information which had not been presented

by any, of the witnesses at. ‘the Committee’ Ss previous

iy hearings on the. — s clio concentration pro- ° -

gram (R..55): ee , ne

ge We ‘knew ‘dian about the: actual activities.

any 0 "the. ‘Communist Party in the steel -plarits in ~

‘ Indiana ‘as of the tinte ‘of ‘this hearing, or

_ shortly ‘before. ‘Mr., LaFleur; who did testify.

[at ‘the Gary hearings], according to my recol-" —

= Jeetion’ got out of the. Communist Party: in

1950.7 © This- witness, Mr. Yellin, as ‘to whom

“we had testimony by several: people, had been

"a member of the Communist Party at, Michigan.

University, and had ‘left: thére: and come ‘down

‘and takeh ‘employnient i in Gary.

Pavenner later testified (R. 57) :

Now, with that .information’ relating: té Mr.

Yellin, we. felt. certain that Mr. ‘Yellin was in

- .. a position, if he would do so;"to.tell this Com-" -.

- comnittee: a. great many things regarding: the plan |”

of the*Communist Party toNinfiltrate the steel

se ook industry here, and’ to, biilding up the Conimu- ee

Ys ‘Party from its grass roots level, and just. 9. - |

<what 4 the. Commuiinist Party plans were -to. make x

<devenh LaFleur testified ” that be. left the Party” in ‘1982

“earings ar alae ala eamitere a war et

eae

| es ‘ . - . git . F a hy. a t

oS a 2 ees: ORE aie . : °

a thele’ bright young men leaders who did dint

thing of colonizing. : - te be

Risiecsuntetiine Walter, the daliieine of the. Com- .

.- “and of: the subcommittee that conducted the

liearings in ‘Gary, Wi s valled/ (to testify”by petitioner. ‘

. Mr, Walter stated that he ‘did not know of petitioner’s

use telegram asking for an. executive session until after

ve ee the public hearing in Gary started, sinée it was not ©

‘addressed ta him and he had jeft- Washington - for .

if | Gary’ by ‘the time. the telegram arrived ;. that neither:

"the: Committee . counsel, to. whom the : ‘telegram was

addressed, nor thie Conunittee staff direetor, who sent \. —

the telegram refusing to hear, petitioner in execu-

- tive séssion, had: the authority to.pass on such a re- ate,

~~ quest (R. 68-69) ; ‘that at. the time petitioner’ S$. coun-

~ sel atteinpted. to. introduce the telegrams at the hear-.

ings, “at it was too late then to raise any question that

might . have* been” raised by the telegrani”’ for ‘thew —

~ Committee - [had] ‘already passed on the question _ of.

whether or not we would hear “Mr. Yellin at a. ses-.

sion’ when the. ‘purpose of ealling him was discussed,

and ‘it was decided: then. that the rule. with - ee

to an executive Session. ‘was not applicable ee iss

- 69-70). When asked what gonsider ‘ations the

Committee used in determining whether to hold an

executiy e Session, Congressman Ww alter testified

{R. 82): “" ye gece ive :

bat ae This is ‘usually done when the Committee is

Ms fearful, lest ‘a Witness “will mention the-name |

. of somebody against whom there is no sworn

testimony, . and in order to prev ent ‘the ‘name. oe

aoe --of somebody being mentioned in publie that.we

oe are not sure. has; ‘one active in the conspinacy,

a " 16° .

at’ least that there’ isn * sworn testimony. to that i pares

effect, we have an exeeutive hearing. . 1 7 ne

to the. ‘Committee’ S| purpose in. aulspoepiding pei- =: . |. ais,

3 tioner, Congressman. Walter stated “that ‘‘[we]. con-_

elu ed’ that’ we would, be a fine witness for the

| tial of our diteinaa efforts: ‘And it is —

ys, worth a. cha yee that, somebody » will testify”

yy While Coniressman Walter admitted that: -°

nesses refuse to: testify, occasionally - we

are vel easantly surprised by chaving somebody

give a information -that is of great. value in the

drafting’ of legis tion” (R. 82).

Petitidrier called\, Professor | Thomas I: Emerson

of Yale to testify as\an expert on the factors which

should be considered , vy the district court in balane- ala “a. a

ing the public and priv ate interests in order to deter- SE Si,

‘mine : whether’ /petitioner’ s First’ Amendment ‘rights ‘

had been yiolated. - The court ruled that this ‘testi-

-mony was not ‘wdmissible heeause it was opinion evi-

dence on ‘questions of law (R: 98-100, 116). Pro-

fessor Emerson *S testimony was then. heard as an

qmer of oe (R. 99-115).

vile: SUMMARY OF ‘isicens

“ iene IT

The Committee’ S 5 investigation of ‘Connasueiat activ- =

ities in hasie industry and, particularly in the steel in-

_- dustry, in the Gary, Indiana, area was pursuant. to.a’

a valid legislative purpose and did fot violate the First

ee Amendment: Petitioner's basic contentions on this

point, as he himself admits, have heen. answer ed by

irs ;

‘ ’ ‘ eas

' ae > “4 7

“this: Court. in :-Barenblatt: v. . United States: 360 U S. =,

109, Ww iikinson v; United States, 35 &.S. 399, and.

Braden v. United States 365 U.S, 431. ‘There, the

we ‘Court, held that, in. circumstances comparable to. the -

“pe sent case, Congr essional inv estigation of Com-

munist’ activities has ‘a valid legislative purpose and?

“committees conducting such investigations may com- ea

-pel witnesses to testify converning their: Communist,

-aetivities without violating their, rights under thé First _

Amendment. vs Pn gee

fx. -Fhe governmental batacent in ‘this casé ey en more.

clearly: outweighs the individual: interests than in the

* Barenblatt’ ease. Here, as in Barenblatt,- there is no

iridication that the subcommittee was attempting: to

pillory. the witness ; the wittfess did not appear as a

-— yesult of indiscriminate dragnet procedures lacking ieee

probable cause for belief that he possessed inf. ‘ormation

which might be helpful to-the Committee ; and ‘fhe

relevancy of the’ questions * * * is not. open to

* doubt.’ - Moreover here\the Committee was investigat-

‘ing Communist activities in basie industry, an. area

~ which jis less directly. protected. than the field of educa-

~ tion that w as involved in Barenblatt; and which is .of°"

abviously great importance to the national security.

_ Petitioner contends that the Committee liad no gov-

ernmental interest. in. questioning him because it had:

all the \nformation: concerning ‘Communist activities

~ which petitioner eould have’ supplied. Even if, how-

_ ever, the. witness had no new information, there is.a +

ee strong’ governmental. interest in having the witness

’ corroborate previous testimony —partienlarly since the

“existing evidence, is in ‘a controversial area and is

S r

° ‘

5 -?

)

-S

therefore likely to be challenged. In addition,, while

the Committee had conducted hearings on Communist.

activities in the ‘steel industry in other localities, it |

| had ‘conducted no such investigation oh the related,

but distirict, subject of ‘Communist activities in the

steel industry in Gary, Indiana. There is no evidence

in the-record that petitioner could not have provided tn

- valuable information on this subject. Petitioner could

not unilaterally determine—by comparing: his own .

knowledge which, he ‘has not disclosed with the in--

formation possesspd by the Committee—that he could

supply no new information.

B. The. trial court properly satin the testimony

of Professor Emerson ‘concerning petitioner’s s claim .

which the court might

at stake.”’ Professor

that his, rights: under the First Amendment had been | -

violated: ‘The - questions asked Professor Emerson

sought: his “opinion\” “as to the various factual con- |

siderations which have to be taken into account in

balaneing the compethg public and private interests

Smerson’s answer principally

described what legal faktors ‘the. courts should con-

sider and what weight ide be given to each of these

factors, not - ‘factual evidence relating to. the factors

nsider. While this state-

ment could properly be presented .as legal argument,

the trial court correctly: held.that. it was not evidence.

Even if, however, Professor Emerson’s statements .

were properly admissible, petitioner's conviction 7

should still be sustained. . The statement was offered

| solely i in relation to the First Amendment issue, which -

was a question of law. “ Since the entire statement is

in the record, it can properly be considered by this.

Wee

Court. _ Professor Emerson, however, added . little cas

to the basi¢ conténtions. already. “considered by this

Jourt. in’ the Barenblatt, Wilkinson, ‘and Braden

eases, ‘Therefore, we submit: that “here, as in those

7. Cases, the: Congressional investigation’ of Communist

activities ‘did not violate the First Amendment.

- é f is | : = ; i IT

Petitioner contends that ‘the statute iinder hie

“he w as. convicted is unk constitutionally ‘vague., Pet

tioner, however, Was conv icted of violating 2 U.S.C.

492, ‘the contempt-of-Congress statute and this: Court :

has repeatedly uplield convictions. under that. statute.

The argument is in reality aimed, not at the statute

under which petitioner was convicted, but at the House.

resolution authorizing the Committee. _ House Rule XI

is, of course, not a cr iminal statute, and therefore this

_ Court ‘has never construed it as one. The Court has

three times held that House Rule XJ is sufficiently. clear

to authorize the Committee | to compel testimony in an

investigation into Communist activities. Barenblatt .

v. United States, supra, 360 U. S. at ‘117; Wilkinson Vv.

Ui nited States, supra, 365 U: S. at 409; Braden V.

nee nited: States, mes, 365 U.S. at 433.

Td |

‘Rule IV-A of the. Committee’ S rules did not re/

quire that. petitioner’ ~ request to appear: ‘at ay execu- *

tive session be eranted.) Rule 1V-A prov ides that a

‘witness may be heard im exceutive ses sion whenever

“a majority of the Conmittee adie believes that the

inter rogation of a witness in a publie ‘he aring might

ees injure his reputation.” Clearly, this rule does

not give a witness a right, upon request, to appear at

an executive session ; instead, the rule leaves it to the

discretion of a majority of the Committee whether: to

interrogate the witness in executive session. The evi-

dence here showed that the Committee had. considered

the matter and decided tliat petitioner should not be

. ealled in executive session. Even if Rule IV implicitly

' provided for judicial review—which we do not think

it does—there is nothing in this record to. suggest that

the Committee. abused its discretion.

; _

. Petitioner contends that. the questions involved in

Counts 2 and 4 are too vague to meet the require-

ments of the Sixth Amendment and Rule 7(c) of the

.-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner, how-

ever, is precluded \from ‘raising this issue because it

‘was not presented i ‘his petition for a-writ of certi

rari. Rule 40(1) ¢ ) (2) of the Rules of, this Sok

In any event, the ‘Sixth Amendment and Rule 7(¢)

require ‘that “Tt}he indictment * * * be a plain, con-

cise and definite written statement of the essential

- faets constituting the offense charged” (Rule 7(¢)),

so that the aecused can adequately defend -himself

and prevent a second prosecution for the same of-

fense. ‘The indictment clearly stated all.the elements |

of the offense, including the questions which ‘peti-

tioner refused to answer. The fact that the indict-

ment did not spell out the meaning of the questions —

did not prejudice petitioner since no possible defense

r 2)

turns on their meaning peer that the. reason peti- .

- tioner had not answered’ the questions is that he did _ rs

not understand them. But that issue—which peti’

tioner | specifically refuses to ‘elaim—depends — on

whether the witness understands the question ‘at’ the

time he refused to answer before the ¢ ge it

would do no good, on that issue, to explain the ques-

tion subsequently in the indietment.

ARGUMENT f .

Petitioner was convicted for refusing to. answer

four questions asked hitn by a Congressional commit-

~ tee during an investigation of Communist activities in

basic industry, and particularly in the steel industry,

in the Gary, Indiana, area. Two. of these: questions—

-where he resided prior to September 1957 (Count 1),.

and whether he was a Party member on June 23, 1949 |

(Count 3)—concerned only his own Party activ ities.

The other two questions *_whether he knew of Pafty

colonization in the steel unions in Gary before 1957

(Count 2) and whether there were Party ‘colonizers

in the steel unions in Gary in 1957 (Count 4)—con-

cerned the Party activities of other persons but did

not require the divulgence of their identity. Since,

petitioner was senteneed to serve concur rent terms of

‘imprisonment and to pay ‘a°fine which was less than ~

‘the maximum authorized by the statute under any one

éount, the judgment below must be affirmed if peti-

tioner’s refusal to answer any one of the questions

was unlawful. E.g., Barenblatt v. United States, 360

U.S. 109, 119. a

~ 3 The indictment contained five counts, but Count 5 was dis-

missed on motion of the gov ernment ce 11).

62922624

THE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIV-

“|TY. IN BASIC INDUSTRY WAS PURSUANT TO A VALID

LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST

AMENDMENT

As he himself admits (Pet. Br. i415, 34), peti-

tioner’s basic contentions that the Committee was not

acting pursuant to a valid legislative purpose and that’

it violated his rights under the First Amendment have

been answered by this Court in Barenblatt v. United

States, supra, Wilkinson v. United. States, 365 U.S.

399, and Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431. Those

cases established that Congressional investigation of ©

Communist activities, in circumstances comparable to

the present ease, has a valid legislative purpose and -

' that committees conducting such investigations may

compel witnesses to testify concerning their Commu-'

nist activities without violating their rights: under the

First Amendment. |

Petitioner also raises First Amendment contentions

_- which are based .on the particular circumstance of |

the present case. In Barenblatt, supra, 360 U.S. at/126,

this Court adopted the rule that “‘[w]here irst.

Amendment rights are asserted to bar gove ental,

_ interrogation resolution. of the issue always irivolves a

_ balancing by the coutts of the competing private and

_ public interests at stake in the particular circumstances

~_shown:”’ Petitioner contends that, unlike in Baren- ‘

blatt, the record in this case establishes that the in-

"dividual interests outweigh the governmental interests. |

In addition, he claims that the trial court erred in ex-

cluding the testimony of Professor Thomas I. ‘Emerson

of Yale University: concerning the balance to be

struck. We submit that these contentions are without

merit. | Th }

A. THE GOVERN MENTAL INTERESTS AT STAKE. OUTWEIGH THE INDI-

VIDUAL inTenasrs IN. THESE PARTICULAR .. CIRCUMETANCES

The Court in Barenblatt, as well as in Wilkinson

and Braden, found that ‘‘the balance between the in-

dividual and the governmental interests here at stake

must be struck in favor of the latter, and * * * there-

fore the provisions of the First Amendment have not

been offended”’ (360.U.S. at 134; see 365 U.S. at 413-

415; 365 U. S..at 435). We submit that the govern-

mental. interests in this ease even more clearly out-

. weigh the individual interests involved tian in the

Barenblatt, Wilkinson, and Braden cases.

| The Court in Barenblat mentioned three particular

considerations in weighing the private and public in-

terests (360 U.S. at’ 134). First, the Court found.

that ‘‘[t]here is no indication in this record that the

: Subcommittee was attempting to pillory witnesses’: .

(ibid.). Similarly, there 1s no such indication in this

ord. The subcommittee allowed petitioner to state _

his objections fully, and then made a considerable

effort to persuade him to testify, even explaining the’

pertinency of the questions despite the absence of any

| specific objection that their pertinency was unclear |

. (see supra, pp. 7, 9-10).

Second, the Court found in Barenblatt that the wit-

ness did not appear as a result-of “ indiscriminate

dragnet. procedures, lacking in probable , cause for

_ belief that he possessed information whieh might be

helpful to the | Subcommittee’”’ (360 U.S. at _—

Here, the Committee! ‘had information that petitioner

was a long-time Party member who had actively par-

ticipated in the Party’s s organization of the steelin-.

dustry in the Gary, Indiana, area (see su pra, 13, 14), *

which was a vital part of the subco ’g investiga-

tion of Communist activities in basic industry in Gary

__ (see supra, pp. 3, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12).

And, third, the Court-in Barenblatt said that. “the

~ “relevancy of ~ the questions *: oes. is not. open ‘to

doubt’’ (360.U.S. at 134).” The same is equally true. ‘a

in this case ; indeed, the pertinency of the questions 4 to

the subject under inquiry was not only .clear on the

‘face of the.questions, but was explained to —

at the hearing even though he did not explicitly ‘claim

‘any lack of pertinency tothe ‘subject under inquiry then. a

or at any time during the judicial proceedings. ae

“In addition to these considerations, an even more

important circumstance supports the same result here

-. asin Barenblatt. In the latter case, the witness was a

college teacher by profession and the investigation sus-

tained by this Court was into Communist infiltration

in the field of education. In Wilkinson and Braden,

the Court upheld Congressional inquiry into Commu-

nist propaganda activities. Thus, the fields of educa- .

tion and propaganda, although clearly within the gen-

. eral area protected by the First Amendment, neverthe- /

~ Jess may be the subjects of a proper investigation ;

fortiort, the. Committee could investigate Communist

activity in basic industry, which is less directly pro-

tected by the First Arendment and which has obviously

great — nee to the national security...

Petitioner suggests (Pet. Br. 18-21) that the Com-:

“mittee had no governmental interest in questioning ©

Toes

me \n"

, iis since it had all the information concerning Com-

munist activities. whieh ‘petitioner could possibly have

supplied. | He ‘argues that the Committee had. eon-

duc ‘ted hearings in other localities on the same or sim-

ilar subject matter; that. other witnesses at the Gary

hearing testified concerning all the information known

to petitioner; and that therefore the. Committee sought

only, corroboration from petitioner. But even if peti-

tioner’s conclusion is correct and the Committee ex-

pected to receive only ‘corroborating testimony from

him, there is am important governmental interest in

having a well-informed witness confirm previous testi- :

mony—particularly when the existing evidence ,is in

a controversial area and therefore is likely, to be

challenged.

In the. present ¢ case, moreover, it is clear that the

‘Committee was not merely seeking to confirm evidence

that it already possessed. Petitioner offered no proof

that he could not have contributed new information

to the investigation. He did not prove at his trial

what information he-had at the time the Committee

quéstioned him. . ” He cammot unilaterally determine—

by comparing his own knowledge which he has not

disclosed with the information he now élaims was pos-

sessed by the Committee—that he could supply the

Committee with no new information.’

*Even if petitioner had ‘testified at his trial concerning the

information he possessed at the time of the hearing: we do not

think a defense would have been established merely because the |

Committee already had the information. At the least, petitioner ,

would hate had to give’ this reason for his refusal to answer at

the time he appeared before the Commitfee. Even then, we

think that-the value of petitioner’ ‘s infor mation—whether it was

~The hearings which investigated Party colonization

activities in other parts of the eountry (see Pet. Br.

19) were, on their face, principally concerned with

different, although related subjects. Although the

Committee had information concerning two of the

questions (petitioner’s residence in 1957 and whether

he was a Party member in 1949), these were only pre-

liminary questions to establish that petitioner. had

knowledge of Party activities ‘in the. steel industry in

the Gary, Indiana, area. Petitioner's answers to the

other two “questions concerning his own knowledge of

Party activities in the steel industry in Gary. (whether:

he knew of Party colonization in the ‘steel unions in

Gary before 1957 and whether. there wére Party col:

onies in the steel’ unions in Gary in 1957) might

merely 1 repeat previous testimony before the’ Commit-

tee. On the other hand, as the Committee hoped and

expected (see supra, pp. 14-15), petitioner's Ss answer

might well provide new information in view of his active °

participation in these Party activities The Commit-

tee had reasonable gcound to helieve that petitioner had

information on Communist infiltration in- the steel

industry. :

\ B. THE TRUAL COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED EXPERT TESTIMONY

CONCERNING -THE FIRST > AMENDMENT: ISSUE

- Petitioner also argues (Pet. Br. 21 ~25) that the

trial court erred in refusing to consider, the. prof-

fered expert testimony. of -Proféssor Emerson in

weighing private and public interests in order to de-

merely cumulative or not—was for the C omiittee to deternene.

These issues, however, are not present in this case sinee peii-

fioner has never shown what information he did have.

— y 4

. Vi : 7 . : {

27 a ;

termine. petitioner's First Amendment rights. This -

contention is likewise erreneous. |

iL Professor Emerson's qualific ations as an-expert

were that he was a professor of law at Yale Uni-

versity and had made extensive, studies in the field

_of civil liberties (R. 93-97). He testified that he had

“concerned [himself] a good deal with the Committee

on Un-American Activities” (R. 97). His attention .

was fhen directed to this Cout’s decision in Baren-

blati \ . Enited States, with — he stated he was

fatpilia®, and he was asked Ci. 97): *

Have yeu an opinion. as to. the Various ¢on-

* siderations Which have to be taken into account

in balancing the pie

interests at stake in

jf resented ¢

‘Phe government objected on

the ground that the

question sought te stimony from the Witness on a mate |

ter of law, not of fact: “The question, invades the prov-

ince of the Court. It is asking for an interpretation

of existing cases, which it is for this Court to decide,

not for oe witness to. decide, whetl Tor not he is an

expert.” (Tr. 228).” : : , |

~The trial court held that the qiestion — in ef-

fect su involved Jegal ppiniga (RR. 98) end sustained

the government ‘s objection ‘to its admis: on (R. 99).

The court, however, permitted petitione K to put the

testimony tito the record as an ‘offer of {proof for

purposes of appeal. -Petitioner’s counsel rephrased

the question to insert-the word “Taetual hifore the

word “considerations” (R. 9). The zoyernmie

“ely, refers to the reporter” s tVpewritten tr snse ripy lof the trial

_ proc veedings ; ‘ /

j a

ej: ‘

ing pablie and private.

he circumstances here

|, again objected. and the’ objection” was. sustained . i |

° (R.. 100)... aie ee ee id

: PeoPsadr’ Emerson testified that the. government's : “A

interest in: seeking. ‘information from petitioner was |» | |

“to to pass’ legislation ! protecting against ‘over throw .

~ the government’ by force’ and violence (R. 100):°. &

: stated that in weighing this interest the court a

| "consider ‘SIX. ‘factors. First, present ‘statutes: (which

oh he_ _ deseribed) already performed - this purpose:- ain

“Seeond, the. country was. strong economically, -politi- *

cally, and socially. : prego a according to Profes-,

\sor Emerson, made. an eed homie collapse’ unlikely;

no strong radical © groups exit téd which: ‘constituted. a

anger to internal: ‘security, articularty.- since there .

ee was no ‘indication. that | ithe, olice - or. military’ awere, > | ae,

{ * » Sympathetic to datcinite to” overthrow the . .govern-

. Mi e ; and there. was no- -seridus social tinrest~ CR. .

“Third, Professor Emerson testified, Yhe Com: Soa

“munist Party was x éxtremely: weak ‘in 195 8 both in. era _

“numbers and positions: of importance ;; security pro- : :

‘grams prev ented ‘the: ‘infiltration, of government and

: ; ‘industry ; and Communist power in labor unions, re-

eee ligious and educational institutions, and the Negro. Se

| “3 ".* community was extremely Small. (R: 103-106). The ,

eee ea: “fourth. factor in determining the government's | in-

eo elena terest was the activity, of the-A. F L. -C.1.0. and other

Een unions in, preventing. Communist infiltration of Tabor *:

“7°. (ORY 106-107)... Fifth, Professor Emerson stated that

| ‘the House U n-American Activities Committee, as shown.

by its reports, already “had taken substantial testimony- ety,

. : ' be s-tein-———_—_§. i

ae Gary: proceedings” (R. 107). And; finally, the | Lat

‘ PS ac gs ®. ‘ ; .

‘ ot : 2 ‘ \

e ? cog ‘ = \

e . = o ao * ° id i

s . . . ‘ Y - eae , ‘

: 3 : ae . + . , : ‘ . ia = ee

——"

ae fet

; Committce could ‘obtain: substantial’ information from

voluntary witnesses cR. 108). “

_ Professor Emeisor then sidnouned his opinion con-

: auane the factors which the district court should. os

‘consider. in determining» the individuals’ interest in

refusing: to testify. . First, eiting “Milton, Jefferson,

Mill, “Chaffee, HolmespBrandéis, s, and recent ‘psychologi-.

‘cal studies, he testified that. the “freedom. of expres.

‘sion is essential to individual integrity | ‘and dignity”

and to. the right to dev elop ‘arid-realize the indiv¥ idual’s

. potentialities. (R, 108).

right of silence. **reco sgnized in the classi¢ flag” salute e

case’ sig. particularly important in modern sotiety

*% where’ so many pressures tend toward confor mity’

(. 109). And, third, the. individual has the right of :

Assoc iation | which ‘is based on: the. weakness of ‘the

_-~ individual ais a single persqn ‘to _acedmplish political

or social ehange’’. (R. ieee Professor’ Emerson em- |

phasized that society, as “well as the individual has

: an important interest in’ “freedom of. expression- since

-it “‘is a. basie and absolutely fundamental pr inciple

of the de smocratic: proc ess”. (R. 104). He described |

the serious “eMeet on the indivédual’ s interest from

““ Congressional | investigation . of ‘beliefs and associa-—

_ tions: the -mere questioning of the witness inltibits

him from: freely expressing himself; économie harm .°

often results such as the loss of employ ment; and i |

witness is ofter socially « istracized (R. 110-111).

addition, other: people besides the witness ae

afraid to- -engage.in similar political activity and -as-

sociations (R. 111): These’ effects are not confined,

Second, the witness said, the .

raat

according to. Professor — to the Comminnist

at ‘et o*

See

4 é P \ . -° \.

: . : ‘, \ 30 . ¥

Party since it is ‘impossible: to ro any clear line; °

the ‘‘whole area left of center * * * becomes smeared

* * * with the same color’”’ (R. 111- 112).

Finally, Professor: -Emersor stated that he thought

that the ‘forces in this country tending ‘toward ‘a .

~ closed society ‘restricting independent thinking and .

activity were: now: stronger than those supporting. an.

oper society (R. 113). In support of this judgment, |

he noted the great number of government employees - ,

subject to loyalty tests, the large units which domi-

nate the. economy, and the unanimity | of opinion €x-

i pressed by mass media and educational institutions |

Mee i 113-114). He therefore stated that ‘‘as of this —

time. what: ‘is needed, in terms of freedom of expres-

‘ sion, is ‘that. ‘society encourage. independence, un-

orthodoxy and. differences * * 2” (Kh. 114)...

Professor Emerson concluded (R. 115) :

' My answer is, on the ‘hasis of the toate

considerations, it is my opinion, that the inter-

ests of the. Government. in obtaining! answers

to, the questions put. to this defendant as an.

-aid- in developing further legislation to pro-

tect ‘internal security - are substantially out-

| ‘s _ weighed by the :interest. of the individual - in

' | “freedom of speeeh or sileri¢e, as he-may prefer,

‘and by the interest of the community: in main- er

taining freedom of political expression and |

other conditions essential to. maintaining. an

‘open ‘society. |

| te ter hearing Professor Emerson’s testimony, the

"- government renewed the objection. to its admission,

on the same grounds, as prev er stated (R. 115).

An: finally excluding the proffered testimony, the trial ©

court said (R. 116): ee 2

fI}t seems to me that, expert. testimony of this .

kind is not material in that it is not. a ques-

‘tion of fact‘as to what elements go to make up

the balance of interests, public and private, but

_a legal matter, which is. w ithin the prov ince of

the Court to dec ‘ide; and it is not a stibject -

expert testimony.

2, Petitioner's contention that thie trial ‘euurt’ $ re--

fusal to allow the introduction of Professor Emer-

son’s testimony was reversible error is without merit

- for at least two reasons. First, we submit that, as

the two courts below held, the testimony was not

properly admissible. It. consisted principally of. ar-

ruments concerning what legal factors the court -

should consider and what weight: should be given to

» each of these factors, not W ith factual ev ‘idenee relat-

ing to the f factors: which the court might consider.

“Thus, Professor Emerson’s statement, coming at the

_ close of petitioner's case, reads like the closing argu-

ment ‘of ‘able .counsel summarizing his chent’s. legal

- position under the First Amendment. W hile ysuch a

statement could be properly presented by petitioner’s

vounsel as: legal argument, the trial court correctly

held that it was ‘not. evidence. ; ee |

Second, even if Ttrofessor Emerson's testimony

were properly admissible, we submit that petitioners

conviction should nevertheless, be sustained. This

. testimony was offered solely in relation to petitioner's

claims under the First Amendment. | ~The | issue

oe ; : 5 ass a

“92 ;

have heen violated by a Congressional committee is,

as. the Barenblatt, Wilkinson, and Braden cases —

‘plainly show, a question of law. Therefore, - this -

Court can consider Professor Emerson’s testimony

which is fully set forth in the-reeord—in determining .

' . petitioner’s First Amendment claims (assuming con-

-trary to our contentions above, that the testimony is

admissible for this purpose). | :

There is no need for the district court Pm make the

_ initial determination of the issue whether petitioner's

First Amendment rights have been violated on the

basis of the record including Professor Emerson’ s testi-

‘mony. Not only is the issue, as stated above, a ques:

tion of law, but: we think its: resolution is perteetly,

-elear, Professor Emerson’s testimony gave no few

‘legal or factual consider ations which were not “consid-

ered by this Court in Barenblatt.: There the Court

_ relied’ heavily on numerous earlier decisions which

deseribed the seriovis danger to the: country arising. .

from Communist activities (360 U. S. at 127-129)."

E.g., American Communications Ass’ nv. Douds, 339

. US. 382, 388-389: Dennis y. United States, 341 US.

494, 498; Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 535-536 :.

~ gee Subversive Activities ‘Control Act. of 1950, Title I,

§ 2, 64 Stat. 987-989. On the other hand, Mr. Justice

Black, .in dissenting in Barenblatt, emphasized the in-

terest ‘“in being ‘able to join organizations, 2 adv ocate —

¢ The Court also noted, in weighing the gov ernment’s interest,

the valid, legislative purpose of the committee, the relevance ‘y of |

the questions asked the witness, and the lack of any indication

that the committee was trying to pillory the witness, or was

causes and make political ‘mistakes’ "and contended

_ that the interest of the-government in ‘sel f-preserva-

> tion’? was ‘‘vastly overstated’’ (360 U.S, at 144).

Professor Emerson's testimony added little to these

basic contentions except to spe!l out the competing

- considerations in greater detail. ‘Thus, he ‘presented

no evidence which could change, the Court’s, deter

‘nation in Barenblatt, Wilkinson, and: Braden that

Congressional committees ean compel. witnesses to

testify concerning their Communist activities without

‘violating the First Amendment. Andj as we have

_gshown earlier (pp. 23-24), the particulay circumstances

‘of this ease are even stronger in-favor of the govern-

“mental as opposed to the private interests than in

those three cases. :

Oe Cs

THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED

18 NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY YAGUE

Petitioner contends (Pet. Br. 30-32) that. the

statute under which he was convicted, #.¢., House Rule

XI, the Committee’s authorizing resolution, was un-

constitutionally vague. In fact, however, the _ peti-

tionergwas convicted of violating 2 U.S.C. 192 .(see

Pet. Br.-3), the contempt-of-Congress statute, which -

_ is perfectly clear. .Convictions under this statute

* have been repeatedly upheld by this Court, as in the

- Barenblatt, Wilkinson; and Braden cases. FS

" -Petitioner’s argument is. therefore not ‘aimed at.

the statute under which he was: conyicted, but rather

at the resolution*of the House of Representatives

authorizing the Committee to eonduet investigations

of Communist activities. Rule Xf, Rut

} ‘

i ° ¥

34 ‘

‘House of Representatives, 60 Stat. 823, 828 (see

Pet. Br. 3). -Rule XT, however, is riot a criminal

statute ; é it does not prohibit: or punish any .. con-

duct. Instead, -it merely confers authority on the

‘Committee - to conduct investigations: within a par-

ticular area. Thus, the rules for construiig: ¢riminal

statutes do not apply to the constriction of Rule XI.

< Petitioner, however, claims (Pet. Br. 30) that this

Court held in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, .

208, and Sacher v. United States, 356 v S..576, 577,

that Rule XI must be treated as a-criminal statute.’

Those cases state, only. the proposition, te which we

of course agree, that “the courts - must aecord to the

defendants [under 2 U.S.C. 192] every right which ‘is

guaranteed to defendants i in all other criminal eases,"

354 U.S. at 208. The Court then went on in Watkins

and Sacher to require that the Congressional commit-

tee explain to the- witness, upon. proper objection,

the . -pertinency of. its questions to the subject under

inquiry. But; as’ the Court expressly said in Wat-

kins, the subject under inquiry could be made clear

to the witness not merely by the committee's author”

izing resolution, hut also by the resolution of the

committee authorizing the particular hearings, the °

opening statement of the committee chairman, the

'_ testimony of other witnesses w ho’ appear at the hear-

ings and statements made by the committee to them,

utid .statements made by the committee--to the par-

tic ular witness himself. 354 U.S. at 209-214. Thus

* The Sacher case actually involved the Senate Entornal me.

ity Subcommittee, which, of course, has a Aifferent authorizing’

5 ae

in Barenblatt, the Court relied on the opening state.

ment of the chairman and testimony by other wit-

nesses to show the subject under inquiry, 360 U.S.

at: 124125. Rule NI. was considered in Barenblatt

only in order to, determine whe ther the committee was

authorized by the House of Represerit: IVES to conduct

the investigation. In none of contempt- of- -Congtess |

cases has the Court considered Rule XI as part of a

“¢ ‘riminal statute under which the witness was convicted.

It is this clear that the government is, required to

rely on Rule XT only to show that the Committee was

authorized by Congress to investigate Conimunist aetiv-

‘ity in basic industry. This Court has specifically held

that Rule XI is sufficiently clear to give the Commit-

tee authority to investigate C — activities, In

Barenblatt, the Court sti ited (360 ULS. at 117):

Petitioner also contents * *'* that je 7 a

gueness. of Rule NI dsprived the Subcommit-

furthest reach would mean that the House Un-

y American Activities Committee under its exist-

ing authority has no right to compel testimony

in any eiretimstances,

After an extensive disc Mission of ies history of Rule

xl, the Court concluded that “the Rule cannot: be

— said to be constitutionally infirm: on the score of

Braden, this Court rejected the petitioner's conten-

tion that Ruie XT was “fatally: vague"’* by bolding

that Rule XI properly authorized the investigation,

tee of the Aght te compel testiriony inthis ine

vestigation into Communist activity. We eoenne

not agree with this:tontention, which ino its. .

. * See the petitioner's brief in No. 54, Oct. Term 1960, pp: 40-42.

| 36

365 U.S. at 433: see also Wilkinson Vv. United States,

(365 U.S. 399, 409.

In all three of these cases, this Court upheld con-

victions under 2 U.S.C. 192 for refusal to answer

ions asked by this very same ‘Committee pur-

suant to the authority given it by the House of Rep-

resentatives in Rulé “XT. Rule XI was sufficiently

clear to sistain a convietion in those cases; it is-.

equally sufficient, under the same cireumstanees, to °

— sustain petitioner” s conviction here.

Ill

THE COMMITTEE’S RULES DID NOT REQUIRE THE COMMIT-

TEE TO GRANT PETITIONER'S. il FST TO APPEAR AT AN

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Petitioner argues (Pet. Br. 26-29) that the Com-

mittee’s failure to allow him to appear at an execu-

tive session, instead of at the public hearings, violated

its rules, and so excused his refusal to answer ques-

tions in the public ae: ‘This argument, too, is

without merit. >

Although petitioner was served with the: Céemmit--

tee’s subpoena on January 23, 1958 (Gov. Ex: 2, p. 2), .

he did not ask the Committee:to appear at an execu-

tive session until February 6, 1958, the T1. ursday pre-

ceding the Monday on which he appeared as a witness.

On that date, he sent a telegram which was addressed .

to the Committee counsel, not to the Committee or —

its chairman (R. 284a), which stated (Def. Ex. 1):

Undersigned represents Edward Yellin and

Nicholas Busic. On their behalf I request exec-

— session in — * pare session. Testimony

|. 3

in exec utive session without eX posing witnesses.

- to publicity. |

Since the telegram arrived in Ww iailiad after the

Committee chairman and counsel had left for Gary,

Indiana, to conduct the hearings (R. 37, 39). it was an-

-gwered by the Committee staff director, who denied

the request (Def. Ex: 2). The record shows’ that the

staff director had no authority to act on petitioner ’s

request (R. 286a). fae \

Petitioner- relies on Rule IV-A of the Rules of

- Procedure of the House Committee on Un-American

Activities as requiring the Committee to grant his

request for an executive session. Rule IV —A states:

_ If a majority of the Committee or Subeommit-

tee, duly appointed as provided hy the ‘rules

of the House of Representatives, believes that

the interrogation of a witness in a public hear-

ing might endanger national REC -urity or ufijustly

‘injure his reputation, or the re putation of other

“individuals, the committee shall interrogate such

witness Im an exec utive session for the purpose

of determining the necessity or advisability of

-eondueting such interrogation: thereafter in a

public hearing.

Rule 1V-A: does not give a witness a right upon re-

quest to an executive session whenever specified eir-

cumstances are present so that the Committce’s re-

fusal to provide this right is reviewable in the courts.

Instead, the rule-leaves it to a majority of the Com-_

mittee, or subcommittee, to decide whether to interro- —

gate the witness in executive session. Thus, the rule

provides that a witness he questioned in executive ses-

sion whenever “a majority af the Committee-* * *

| 38 |

believes that the interrogation of a witness in a. public

hearing might * * * unjustly injure his reputation

** **" (emphasis added). This language gives the

Committee ‘diseretion whether to hear a witness in

executive session. | |

Here, the Committee decided not to have petitioner

testify at an-exgcutive Session even though it did not

know that petitioner had requested such an appear-

ance. Congressman Walter testified that ‘‘the Com-

mittee * * * passed on the question of whether or

not .we would hear Mr. Yellin: at-a session when the

purpose of calling him was discussed, and it, was

decided then that the rule: with respect to_an execu-

tive session was not applicable * * * (R. 70).

We have emphasized that Rule IV-A confers no

right on petitioner -to have this determination re-

viewed by the courts. Even if. Rule IV-A did im-

plicitly provide for.a right of review, it is clear than

a. Congressional committee has broad discretion in

~~. determining its own procedure upon such questions as

whether to hear a witness in an executive or publie

‘session. There is nothing in this record to suggest

that the Committee abused its discretion in this case.”

* Petitioner also suggests (Pet. Br. 27, footnote) that Rule

XI{m) of the House Rules gave him the right to appear in

executive session. .The language of this provision indicates

that it was intended to protect persons other than the witness

himself from being injured since jt allows the injured person

“an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness * * *." As

the Committee ‘counsel testified at the petitioner's ‘trial (R. 88—/

90), this was the Committee's interpretation of the Rule. .More- :

over, Rule XI(m), like Rule IV-A of the Committee’s own

rules, confers no right on anyone to appear in executive ses-

sion unless the Congressional i nines

mination which was not made in this case.

THE QU ESTIONS WHICH WERE THE BASIS FOR COUNTS 2

AND 4 WERE NOT TOO VAGUE TO sU PPORT THE INDICT-

MENT

Petitioner claims (Pet. Br. 32-34) ‘that the ques-

tions contained in, Counts 2 and 4 are too rague - .to

satisfy the Sixth ‘Amendment and Rule 7(c). of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Proc -edure, which require

“that in all criminal prosecutions the aceused shall be

‘informed of the nature and eause of the accusation.’

The question involve din Count 2 was: “Will you tell

the Committee, please, whether or not incidents came

-to your attention of. the colonization of the steel

unions in Gary by the Communist Party at any time

prior to Se sptember- 1957?” The question involved in

Count 4 was: “Will you tell the Committee. whe ther

or not in. 1957 there, were present in any of the steel

—unions.at Gary, Indiana, persons who were known to

“you to have ‘been colonizers of the Communist

Party?’ . **. ae baat ae es

| Petitioner specifically does not question.the fact that

-he. understood the meaning of these questions. Rather,

he states that “[t]he issue was not whether he. under-

stood the question, but whether the indictment met

the requirements of the Sixth Amendment and of Rule

7(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure” (Pet. Br. 33).

A. First, petitioner is precluded from raising this -

issue ‘because it was not presented—or even ‘sug> |

gested—in his petition for a writ of certiorari.

Therefore, under Rule 40(1) (a) (2) of the Rules of

this Court, he « ‘annot raise it in his brief on the merits-

40 7 "ie

’ unless ' there was ‘‘plain. érror.’ yg, Kessler v.

Strecker, 307 U.S. 22, 34. Mendis

_- B..In any event, petitioner’s contention is clearly

without merit. The Sixth Amendment and Rule 7(c)

require that “[t]he indictment * * * be a plain, concise

and definite written statement of the essential facts con- |

stituting the offense charged”? (Rule 7(c)), so that

the accused can adequately defend himself and can

plead a conviction or acquittal in bar of a subsequent

prosecution for the same offense. E.g., United States

_v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 377-378. The indictment

set out clearly the Committee’s investigative author-

ity, the subject under inquiry, the facts “concerning

~ the hearing, the subpoenaing of petitioner, his appéar- |

ance, and his wilful- refusal to answer five pertinent

‘questions, each of which was quoted (R. 1-3). Tha

- whether or-not the questions themselves were vague, .

these allegations clearly and sufficiently allege | that

‘petitioner violated 2 U.S.C. 192 by wilfully refusing

to answer pertinent questions asked by a 0

sional committee. "The fact that the indictment

not spell out the meaning of the qucstioris did vt

prejudice petitioner either in preparing his defense jor

by allowing the Possibility of a new “Prosecution or

the same offense. : Tie:

As to. prepani his defense, it ‘end not have

hclped petitioner to have the indictment specify the

_ Meaning of the questions. The charge was that. he |

had refused to. answer the questions. The only possi-

blé. defense which could turn upon their meaning is |

that petitioner refused to answer the questions be- —

cause he did not understand them. __But that defense

en Fi

depends on whether petitioner understood their mean-

ing when he appeared before the: Committee; if. he

did not understand the questions at that time, it would oe

do no good to acquaint him of their meaning in the

ment specified the Committee holding the hgaring, the

_ time of the hearing; and the questions petitioner re-

fused ‘to answer. There — was no possibfli

/ these same questions.

/. The indictment Was not required to detai the mean-

ing of the questions, which petitioner ref sed to /an-

swer cither by describing their context in {he hearing

ok by defining the various words w hich jwere. used.

Frequently, questions standing alone are{vague and

‘ambiguous. For example, in ‘the Barenblatt case, this”

Court upheld the conviction of a witness for refusing

the Haldane Club of the Communist Party while at .

the University of Michigan ?”’ (360 U.S. at}114).. The

indictment never described the Haldane (lub or its —

exact ccunection w ith the Communist Party. A re-

peer ne that such questions be explained’ in. the

indictment would be contrary to the language and

purpose of Rule 7(c) that the indictment be a con-

cise statement of the essential facts. The ion of .

- the question is not an essentiai element of the ¢rime of

‘contempt; it is the wilful refusal to answer W hich.

- constitutes the crime. ~

1” We show below (pp. 42-45) that petitioner. did understand

- the questions at ‘he time he refused to answer them and that,

in any event, this defense is not open to him since he did not

_claim that the questions were vague at that time.

Pa eae a 42 ‘ |

a petitioner’s real contention is‘ that. the questions

_ did not adequately: apprise him of ‘the information

| sought by the Committee and that therefore hecan- -

not be convicted of. ‘contempt. ‘We agree: that, a wit- |

ness ‘before a Congressional committee. cannot be con-

Yieted. of: wilfully refusing to answer questions asked

by a Congressional committee if the witness informs

. the Committee that he cannot understand | what in-

a formation the Committee i is séeking and the Cominittee -

nevertheless. fails to- state or explain the questions

* with reasonable. clarity. W e. emphisize; however, that -

the witness is . required to. object on.the ground of. -

a vagueness at the time, the questions are asked by the .

committee. Just as: with regard to, the pertinency :

of the questions. to the subject under inquiry, the com. .

"mittee ‘can easily explain the. meaning of its questions 7

vagueness, like the issue whether ‘the committee suffi- "

ciently apprises the witness of the pertinéney of the

‘questions, cannot be raised for the first time at trial.

Cf. Barenblatt v. United States, supra, 360 U.S. at ie

123-124; Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456, 469.

Here; petitioner, although he made several objections sh

tothe questions: he refused ‘to answer; did not even

indicate that he failed to understand them. ;

On the other: -hand, unlike the. situation With re-

gard to. the. issue.of pertinency, we- ‘do not think that re

the . government. is\requited to prove the meaning of

the questions at. the Witness’ trial for contempt when =~

. he fails to. raise the issue before the. committee. . an

- De ‘utch, this Court t held, even though the e pertineney

yon, oe A eee a

Go -d . ‘

of the (tiestions was ‘not ae at the hearing,

that the goverment As required eto prove’ pertine! ney.’

at the trial. 367 US. 468." This holding ‘the _

entirely on the explicit requirement of 2 1 UBT 192

that the questions be ‘*pertinent to the question: under

inquiry.” - Since. 2 U.S.C. 192: does’ not make | the |

clarity of the question an. element aot the offense, we

‘do not think -that the governme nt is required to prove

it unless H was timely raise d be fore the conmitittee

itself. * area nee a

In ay event, in this case, the meaning of the ques-

tidtas in Counts 2 and 4, was made cléar, to petitioner

“at the hearing and the introduction , of the transcript .

of the hearing ‘satisfied “ae burden the ‘government

» ‘may have -had to’ show their meaning ‘at petitioner s

~ trial. The only possible vagueness in the two ques-"

tions eonce) rus the words °* ‘colonization in Count P

and * “eolonizer”’ * Connt 4. Petitioner admitte «d

* that he was present + anita Join Lautner, -a long+time

high official in the, Communist Party. testified before:

the Committee (Hearings, p: 1976). During this testi- :

mony, the Party's s colonization progr am was repeatedly

described. : ier testified that, after the 1945 -reconi-

"colonizers /tr ained Party. ine ae we who were asstencd

co : organize l arty activities in the steel industry in the

Middle West (1d. ‘at pp. 1965-1966). Lautner further

testified that after the 1948 Party convention “one.

; a J. Peters “ore i

—

v members”” and that in the spring of 1949 Party

Inembers, who had just graduated from college, he.

a number ‘of classes: for. colonizing

ae ee ad -

-strnetionof Ine arty, a policy of colonization was he-

ete Be sop: gun, (id. at/ pp. 4964-1969). He described, as. Party

44 . . :

-came ‘colonizers in various industries (td. at p. 1967).

At this point, Lautner defined a ‘‘colonizer’’ (id. at

*'p. 1968) 2° eo ee

A eolonized Communist is oné who is a pro-_

-» . feastonal revolutionary, who has uprooted him-

Self from his home environment and carried

cout a party instruction, one who may have

- . had ,personal-problems, family problems, but

' that was secondary. - The -first was the prob-

_... + fem of the party, and he submitted himself

\ « */to become a person who will solve for the party

their ‘problems and hecome a: colonized Com- - ;

_ ° munist to carry out Communist workin a basic:

\ industry. [Emphasis added. |. 7 |

Lautner said that colpnizers get johs in a major in-

dustry by misrepresenting their college education

-(ibsd.). ‘Subsequently, ‘the goufisel of the Commit- -

tee summarized Lautner’s testimony about Péters:

“You told us about *°* * classes that were con-

ducted by J: Peters, training young men in the uni-

versities to’ go out ‘and engage in colonization -in

_ Industry”’ ‘(id.-at p. 1968). -Lautner: said that the

- Party believed that. ‘‘the best way to get back into

the main stream of labor would be to colonize capable.

Communist organizers in the basic industries * * *””

dlat pM). G0 nd

Before petitioner, was, finally ordered to answer

- the question involved i. Count 2 concerning whether

_he knew of colonization hy the Communist Party in _

steel unions: in. Gary, Indiana, prior to September

. 1957, the Party’s program ‘of colonization was ex-. °

plicitly. described to him. The counsel of the Com-

a ’ 3

9 mittee stated (Hearings, p. 1986) : ak

It ine heen testified liere that colonization of

young men in the middle of their educational

courses in industry was a deep seated plan of

the Communist’ Party to’ strengthen _ itself

within basic, industry. |

“After petitioner then - told the Committee that he

was present then. Lautner testified, the Comnittee

counsel ‘said that [t]he statement wis made “here of

the practice of the Communist Party’ in colonizing: in-

dustry at. Flint, Mich higan: at the University of Colo-

. rado, which is at Fort Collins, Colorado, where you |

‘now reside: and other plaees”’ (ibid.).

In short, we submit thatsthe record of the hearings

shows that petitioner was fully: acquainted with the

claim as to the Party's colonization progré am in basie >

industries before he refused to answer the questions.

involved in Counts 2 and 4. He clearly knew that the

Committee’ s questions sought to ‘obtain information

of Party organizing activ ities in. the. steel industry in

Gary, Indiana.”

™ Even if, contr: ary .to our contenti ions above, Cots 2 2 and

4 are eianee because of the vagueness of thé questions, peti®

tioner’s conviction. still must be ‘effiemed. Ile received concur--

rent sentences on all four counts and therefore his conviction

must be, sustained -if any -one count is valid. 4.g., Barenblatt

46 |

CONCLUSION = _

For the. foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit

ithat the judgment of the court of — should. be

affirmed. :

Beer oe ARCHIBALD Cox,

| a Solicitor General.

J. WatTer YEAGLEY,

a | Assistant Attorney General.

: | ~ Bruce J. TERRIS, |

Po Assistant to the Solicitor oncbel:

Kevin TC Maroney,

1 Lee B. ANDERSON,

Attorneys.

Fesruary 1962. }

US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1968

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.