KNAPP
v.
SCHWEITZER, JUDGE, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, ET AL.
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.
The Court granted certiorari limited to the question of whether an employer, compelled to testify before a state grand jury, can invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when answers might establish a federal crime under the Taft-Hartley Act, and whether state contempt punishment is barred by the Supremacy Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.
An employer, called before a state grand jury investigating bribery, extortion, and conspiracy related to labor union operations, invoked his Fifth Am…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is granted limited to question 2 presented by the jurisdictional statement which reads as follows:
“2. self incrimination.
“Whether an employer in an industry affecting commerce, called before a Grand Jury of the State as a witness in the course of an investigation concerning the state penal offenses of bribery, extortion and conspiracy connected with labor union operations, is privileged, by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to decline to answer questions of such character that affirmative answers thereto would establish the corpus of the federal crime of unauthorized payment of moneys to an official of the labor union representing his employees, Taft-Hartley Act, Sec. 302 (29 U. S. C. 186; 61 Stat. 157) ; and whether his ensuing punishment for contempt by a State Court is not barred by the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, Cl. 2 of the United States Constitution and also by the 'Privileges and Immunities’ Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Bernard H. Fitzpatrick for appellant. Frank S. Hogan and Charles W. Manning for appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1958)…. 2d 913, 141 N. E. 2d 825, which duly amended its remittitur to show that it had passed on and rejected petitioner's claim of a privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, 2 N. Y. 2d 975, 142 N. E. 2d 649. We granted certiorari, 355 U. S. 804, to consider this constitutional question. Petitioner does not claim that his conviction of contempt for refusal to answer questions put to him in a state proceeding deprived him of liberty or property without due process of law in violation of the…