United States v. Richard Steelhammer, United States of America v. Andrew Gallagher

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Richard Steelhammer, United States of America v. Andrew Gallagher

561 F.2d 539, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11746

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 1977

Docket75-2178, 75-2179

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 561 F.2d 539 (United States v. Richard Steelhammer, United States of America v. Andrew Gallagher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Richard Steelhammer, United States of America v. Andrew Gallagher, 561 F.2d 539, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11746 (4th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A panel of the court decided this case by a split vote. United States v. Steelhammer, 539 F.2d 373 (4 Cir. 1976). The majority opinion was written by Judge Bryan and concurred in by Judge Kunzig of the United States Court of Claims who was sitting by designation. Judge Winter dissented and filed a separate statement of his views.

We granted rehearing in banc to determine whether, under the facts and circumstances set forth in the panel opinions, the reporters could properly be held in contempt of court for their refusal to testify. On this issue, Chief Judge Haynsworth, Judge Winter, Judge Russell and Judge Widener are of the view that they may for the reason sufficiently stated in Judge Winter’s dissenting panel opinion. Judge Bryan, Judge Craven and Judge Butzner are of the contrary view for the reasons sufficiently stated in Judge Bryan’s majority panel opinion.

The underlying proceeding in which the reporters were held in contempt has now been terminated, but the punishments imposed on the reporters have been stayed pending the outcome of these appeals. However, Judge Winter, Judge Russell and Judge Widener think that the reporters were held in civil contempt and they may not now legally be punished since the underlying proceeding has terminated.

It thus appears that a majority of the court concludes that the district court properly required the reporters to answer and therefore their convictions for contempt should be affirmed, but that, for differing reasons, the reporters may not now be further punished for their refusals to answer. The majority therefore joins in a judgment affirming the judgments of contempt, but vacating the unserved portions of the sentence imposed thereon.

JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT AFFIRMED; UNSERVED SENTENCE VACATED.

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

PER CURIAM:

A panel of the court decided this case by a split vote. United States v. Steelhammer, 539 F.2d 373 (4 Cir. 1976). The majority opinion was written by Judge Bryan and concurred in by Judge Kunzig of the United States Court of Claims who was sitting by designation. Judge Winter dissented and filed a separate statement of his views.

We granted rehearing in banc to determine whether, under the facts and circumstances set forth in the panel opinions, the reporters could properly be held in contempt of court for their refusal to testify. On this issue, Chief Judge Haynsworth, Judge Winter, Judge Russell and Judge Widener are of the view that they may for the reason sufficiently stated in Judge Winter’s dissenting panel opinion. Judge Bryan, Judge Craven and Judge Butzner are of the contrary view for the reasons sufficiently stated in Judge Bryan’s majority panel opinion.

The underlying proceeding in which the reporters were held in contempt has now been terminated, but the punishments imposed on the reporters have been stayed pending the outcome of these appeals. However, Judge Winter, Judge Russell and Judge Widener think that the reporters were held in civil contempt and they may not now legally be punished since the underlying proceeding has terminated.

It thus appears that a majority of the court concludes that the district court properly required the reporters to answer and therefore their convictions for contempt should be affirmed, but that, for differing reasons, the reporters may not now be further punished for their refusals to answer. The majority therefore joins in a judgment affirming the judgments of contempt, but vacating the unserved portions of the sentence imposed thereon.

JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT AFFIRMED; UNSERVED SENTENCE VACATED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 F.2d 539, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-steelhammer-united-states-of-america-v-andrew-ca4-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack