Scribd
Upload
32 views2 pages

United States v. Edward J. Fitzgerald, 235 F.2d 453, 2d Cir. (1956)

This document is an appellate court opinion from 1956 affirming a judgment of contempt against Edward J. Fitzgerald for refusing to testify before a grand jury. The United States Attorney had obtained an order under the 1954 Compulsory Testimony Act instructing Fitzgerald to answer questions he had refused to answer before the grand jury on the grounds that his answers might incriminate him. Fitzgerald argued he was relieved of the compulsion to testify by rejecting the immunity conferred by the statute, but the court rejected this argument based on prior precedent. The court also held Fitzgerald was not entitled to challenge the Attorney General's judgment that his testimony was necessary in the public interest. The statutory requirements for compelling Fitzgerald's testimony were properly found to exist, so the contempt

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
32 views2 pages

United States v. Edward J. Fitzgerald, 235 F.2d 453, 2d Cir. (1956)

This document is an appellate court opinion from 1956 affirming a judgment of contempt against Edward J. Fitzgerald for refusing to testify before a grand jury. The United States Attorney had obtained an order under the 1954 Compulsory Testimony Act instructing Fitzgerald to answer questions he had refused to answer before the grand jury on the grounds that his answers might incriminate him. Fitzgerald argued he was relieved of the compulsion to testify by rejecting the immunity conferred by the statute, but the court rejected this argument based on prior precedent. The court also held Fitzgerald was not entitled to challenge the Attorney General's judgment that his testimony was necessary in the public interest. The statutory requirements for compelling Fitzgerald's testimony were properly found to exist, so the contempt

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

235 F.

2d 453

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


v.
Edward J. FITZGERALD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 380.
Docket 23803.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


Argued June 6, 1956.
Decided July 6, 1956.

Milton H. Friedman, New York City, for defendant-appellant.


Thomas A. Bolan, Asst. U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Paul W.
Williams, U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and WATERMAN, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of contempt of court as


a result of his refusal to testify before a grand jury in conformity with an order
issued under authority of the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1954, 18 U.S.C.
3486, as amended. On July 25, 1955, the United States Attorney presented to
Judge Dawson an application for an order instructing appellant to answer
questions which he had refused to answer before the grand jury and to testify
and produce evidence pursuant to the provisions of this recently enacted
immunity statute. The application described the subject matter of the grand jury
inquiry, set forth the questions asked appellant by the grand jury, and stated that
he refused to answer the questions on the ground that his answers might tend to
incriminate him. It also averred that in the judgment of the United States
Attorney the testimony of the appellant was necessary to the public interest,
and that it was being made with the approval of the Attorney General, whose
letter of approval was attached.

Appellant cannot, as he argues, be relieved of the compulsion to testify by


reason of his express rejection of the immunity conferred under the statute. See
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 76 S.Ct. 497; Burdick v. United States,
236 U.S. 79, 94, 35 S.Ct. 267, 59 L.Ed. 476. Nor was he entitled to a hearing
looking behind the asserted judgment of the Attorney General into the motives.
All the statutory requirements were found to exist by Judge Dawson, and he
designated the questions to be answered with sufficient particularity to sustain
the finding of contempt later made by Judge Walsh. All questions of substance
here were settled adversely to the appellant by the Ullmann decision in March.

Affirmed.

You might also like