CURTIN
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A newspaper reporter was held in contempt of court for refusing to answer grand jury questions about a published article, even after the President offered him a pardon for immunity. The Supreme Court reversed the contempt judgment, holding on the authority of the companion case Burdick v. United States that a presidential pardon cannot be imposed on a person against their will to compel testimony, and ordered the reporter's discharge from custody.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ of error was argued and submitted at the same time as Burdick v. United States, just decided, ante, p. 79. Its purpose is to review a judgment for contempt against Curtin upon presentment of the Federal grand jury for refusing to answer certain questions in the same proceeding considered in the Burdick Case in regard to a certain article published in the New York Tribune. Curtin'is a reporter on that paper. He declined to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would tend to incriminate him. At a subsequent hearing a pardon issued by the President was offered him , (it was the same in substance as that offered Burdick) and he was again questioned. He declined to receive the pardon or to answer the questions on the same ground as before. He was, on presentment of the grand jury, adjudged guilty of contempt, fined as Burdick was, with the same leave to purge himself of the contempt, the court deciding that the pardon was valid and sufficient for immunity. Upon Curtin again refusing to answer, the judgment was made absolute and he was committed to the custody of the United States Marshal.
It will be observed, therefore, the case is almost identical in its facts with the Burdick Case and exactly the same in principle. On the authority of that case, therefore, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to dismiss the proceedings in contempt and discharge Curtin from custody.
Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
United States v. Lester, 363 F.2d 68 (6th Cir. 1966)…dred dollars or imprisoned for twelve months, or both. . Among others, Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112, 53 S.Ct. 35, 77 L.Ed. 206; Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 80 S.Ct. 1171, 4 L.Ed.2d 1277; United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 144, 35 S.Ct. 271, 59 L.Ed. 504; Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 81, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314; Boushea v. United States, 173 F. 2d 131 (CA 8, 1949); Kaufman v. United States, 212 F. 613 (C.C.A.2, 1914); Cohen v. United States, 157 P. 651 (C.C.A.2, 1907); Laz…
-
United States v. Johnson, 337 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1964)…be proper. In the instant case, had the original prosecution been brought in Florida, the situs of the drawee bank, the continuing offense statute would have supported venue there, as well as in Maryland. . Cf. United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 35 S.Ct. 271, 59 L.Ed. 504 (1915). . In Bowles the indictment apparently averred only that the alleged aiders and abettors had paid money. The court’s opinion indicated no other acts of assistance. The same is true of Nigro and Lott. Because of the difference b…
-
Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., Inc., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979)…receive it; but even so a person who cannot commit a substantive offense may guiltily conspire with another who can commit it that he do so. United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 35 S.Ct. 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 35 S.Ct. 271, 59 L.Ed. 504, L.R.A. 1915D, 281; O’Leary v. United States, 7 Cir., 56 F. 2d 515; Curtis v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F. 2d 943. The rule that the acquittal of all save one alleged conspirators results in the acquittal of all applies to acquittals…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence