Defendant, not claiming constitutional protection against self-incrimination, refused to testify before a Senate committee on grounds that his "constitutional rights" would be violated if compelled to give testimony while being televised, photographed, etc. Cited for willfully and without justification refusing to testify on matters pertinent to the purpose of the inquiry, defendant was tried for contempt of Congress. Held, not guilty; defendant's refusal was justified. The court, after stating that there were no precedents, and that no constitutional issue was involved, seemed to rest its decision on the fact that the atmosphere of the forum did not lend itself to the purpose of the inquiry. If truthful disclosures of fact were being sought, then the publicity apparatus may so distract the witness as to induce him to make mistakes and thus defeat the legislative purpose in calling the witness to testify. United States v. Kleinman, (D.C. D.C. 1952) 107 F. Supp. 407.
S. I. Shuman,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-USE OF TELEVISION AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss7/8