United States v. Edward J. Fitzgerald

235 F.2d 453, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJuly 6, 1956
Docket23803_1
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 235 F.2d 453 (United States v. Edward J. Fitzgerald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Edward J. Fitzgerald, 235 F.2d 453, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882 (2d Cir. 1956).

Opinion

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 *454 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fletcher v. Graham
192 S.W.3d 350 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2006)
In Re the Grand Jury Testimony of Kinoy
326 F. Supp. 407 (S.D. New York, 1971)
In re Grand Jury Investigation
317 F. Supp. 792 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1970)
In Re Philip Bart
304 F.2d 631 (D.C. Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 F.2d 453, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edward-j-fitzgerald-ca2-1956.