Sequel to Greenberg

• Jurisdiction: United States

Section 180. Sequel to Greenberg v. United States.—As has been indicated above, the argument in Greenberg was followed within five days by a per curiam reversal.⁶⁶ A similar but perhaps even more drastic fate was visited on the Third Circuit's Singleton decision⁶⁷ five weeks later; that conviction was reversed simply on the strength of the petition, without argument.⁶⁸ In due course, these emphatic actions were noticed by Courts of Appeals,⁶⁹ with the consequence that for a number of years most convictions in similar circumstances were reversed before reaching the Supreme Court.⁷⁰ A few later lapses joined Singleton in the ignominy of per curiam reversal without argument.⁷¹ It may therefore now be deemed settled law that a witness may properly claim his privilege if to answer "might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result."⁷²

By and large, almost every one of the contempt convictions was overturned, particularly those arising from refusals to answer questions propounded by the Kefauver Committee.⁷³ The principal exception was Rogers v. United States,⁷⁴ which turned on waiver, and evoked a vigorous dissent. It seems safe to say that the authority of the Rogers case has since been markedly impaired by subsequent decisions narrowing any waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination.⁷⁵

At any rate, before the scope of the privilege to refuse to answer apparently innocuous questions was settled, it presented some fascinating legal inquiries—and, as the present chapter indicates, some challenging problems in advocacy as well.

--------

Notes:

^[66] 343 U. S. 918.

^[67] 193 F. 2d 464.

^[68] 343 U. S. 944.

^[69] See United States v. Coffey, 198 F. 2d 438 (C.A. 3); Aiuppa v. United States, 201 F. 2d 287 (C.A. 6); United States v. Doto, 205 F. 2d 416...