CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--FIFTH AMENDMENT--PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BY ADMISSION OF OCCUPATION AND OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHEREABOUTS OF A FUGITIVE WITNESS

Authors

Lois Hambro, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Petitioner, who was known as an underworld character and racketeer, was subpoenaed before a federal grand jury investigating federal crime and rackets and was asked his occupation and business and whether he had seen, talked to, or knew the whereabouts of a certain person upon whom a subpoena had been issued but not served requiring such fugitive person to appear before a federal grand jury. He refused to answer on the ground of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner was adjudged in contempt of court for refusal to answer the questions. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Held, judgment reversed. Petitioner could sense the peril of prosecution and therefore had the right to assert his constitutional privilege of refusing to answer. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951).

Recommended Citation

Lois Hambro, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--FIFTH AMENDMENT--PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BY ADMISSION OF OCCUPATION AND OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHEREABOUTS OF A FUGITIVE WITNESS, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 605 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss4/11