CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-USE OF TELEVISION AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

Shuman, S. I.

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 51

First Page: 1072

Year: 1953

Bluebook Citation: 51 MICH. L. REV. 1072 (1953)

Author: Samuel I. Shuman: all 23 publications


Abstract

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.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.