Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge
Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge
Michigan Law Review
At the last term the United States Supreme Court in Ullmann v. United States upheld the constitutionality of paragraph (c) of a federal act of August 1954 which seeks to compel the testimony of communists and other political deviants. Paragraph (c) relates to witnesses before federal courts and grand juries. The Court specifically left open the question of the validity of paragraphs (a) and (b) relating to congressional witnesses. Justice Frankfurter delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Douglas, with the concurrence of Justice Black, wrote a dissent.
It is our purpose to consider the background, history and terms of this compulsory …
Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons' membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner's appeal from this order …
Constitutional Law - Grand Jury Under The Fifth Amendment Indictments Not Subject To Attack On Evidentiary Ground, Jerome K. Walsh, Jr. S.Ed.
Constitutional Law - Grand Jury Under The Fifth Amendment Indictments Not Subject To Attack On Evidentiary Ground, Jerome K. Walsh, Jr. S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on four counts of willfully evading federal income taxes due for the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. His motion before trial to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was firmly convinced that there could have been no legal or competent evidence before the grand jury was denied by the trial court. At the conclusion of the government's case, and again just before the case went to the jury, counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that only hearsay evidence offered by three revenue agents had …