Syllabus.

356 U.S.

BROWN v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

No. 43. Argued April 4, 1957.-Restored to the calendar for reargument June 10, 1957-Reargued October 22,

1957. Decided March 31, 1958.

In the Government's civil suit in a Federal District Court for petitioner's denaturalization on the ground that she had fraudulently procured citizenship by swearing falsely that she was not, and had not been, a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party, she voluntarily took the stand and testified at length in her own defense. Thereafter, during cross-examination, she refused, on grounds of self-incrimination, to answer questions which were relevant to her testimony on direct examination. The District Court ruled that she had waived her privilege by testifying in her own defense and ordered her to answer; but she persisted in her refusal to do so. For this, she was summarily adjudged guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to imprisonment. Held: The conviction is sustained. Pp. 149-157.

(a) There can be no doubt that stubborn disobedience of the duty to answer relevant inquiries in a judicial proceeding brings into force the power of the federal courts to punish for contempt. Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, and In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, distinguished. Pp. 153–154.

(b) By taking the stand and testifying in her own behalf, petitioner waived the right to invoke on cross-examination her privilege against self-incrimination regarding matters made relevant by her direct examination. Pp. 154–156.

(c) The record does not fairly support petitioner's claim that the District Court found a waiver simply in the act of taking the stand and misled her as to the actual legal question involved. Pp. 156-157.

234 F. 2d 140, affirmed.

George W. Crockett, Jr. argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.

Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. On the briefs were Solicitor General Rankin, Warren Olney, III, then Assistant Attorney General, and

148

Opinion of the Court.

Beatrice Rosenberg. Mr. Spritzer was also with them on the brief on the reargument.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a proceeding of summary disposition, under Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,1 of a finding of criminal contempt committed in the actual presence of the court, the power to punish which is given by 18 U. S. C. § 401. The proceeding grew out of a suit for denaturalization brought against petitioner pursuant to § 340 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 260, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1451 (a). The complaint in the denaturalization suit charged that petitioner had fraudulently procured citizenship in 1946 by falsely swearing that she was attached to the principles of the Constitution, and that she was not and had not been for ten years preceding opposed to organized government or a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any organization teaching opposition to organized government, whereas in fact petitioner had been, from 1933 to 1937, a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, both organizations advocating the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence.

1"A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record."

2 "A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as

"(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

"(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; "(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command."

At the trial in the denaturalization proceeding, petitioner was called as an adverse witness by the Government under Rule 43 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner admitted that she had once been a member of the Young Communist League, but denied that she had belonged to the Communist Party in the period before 1946. She refused to answer questions about activities and associations that were unlimited in time or directed to the period after 1946 on the ground that her answers might tend to incriminate her, and the District Court sustained the claim of privilege. At the close of the Government's examination, petitioner's counsel stated that, "I won't cross-examine the witness at this point. I will put her on on direct." 3

Thereafter petitioner took the stand as a witness in her own behalf. She comprehensively reaffirmed the truth of the statements made at the time of her naturalization, and, although she admitted membership in the Young Communist League from about 1930, claimed that she had resigned in 1935 and had not engaged in any Communist activities from 1935 until her naturalization in 1946. Not content to rest there, petitioner went on to testify that she had never taught or advocated the overthrow of the existing government or belonged to any organization that did so advocate, that she believed in fighting for this country and would take up arms in its defense in event of hostilities with Soviet Russia, and that she was attached to the principles of the Constitution and the good order and happiness of the United States. This

Counsel for petitioner in this Court did not represent her in the trial court.

"Q. Are you willing to take up arms in defense of this country, in the event of any hostility between the United States and Russia? "A. Yes.

"Q. Regardless of whatever the reason may be for any hostility

148

Opinion of the Court.

testimony was directed to petitioner's present disposition towards the United States, and was not limited to the period before 1946.

between the government of the United States and the Government of Russia?

"A. That is correct.

"Q. In Question 28 you were asked: 'Are you a believer in anarchy, or the unlawful damage, injury or destruction of property, or of sabotage'? And you answered 'No.'

"Was that a true answer to that question?

"A. That was a true answer.

"Q. You say it was not only a true answer at the time you filed the petition, July 16, 1946, and is that the true answer today?

"A. It is true. It was a perfectly true answer to that question. I never believed in overthrowing anything. I believe in fighting for this country. I like this country. I never tol' anybody I didn't. "Q. Did you ever teach or advocate anarchy or overthrow of the existing government in this country?

"A. Teach?

"Q. Did you ever teach the idea that we ought to overthrow the government of the United States?

"A. No, I never did.

"Q. Did you ever advocate that?

"A. No.

"Q. Did you ever say that we should?

“A. No, I never did.

"Q. To your knowledge, did you ever belong to any organization that taught or advocated anarchy or the overthrow of the existing government of this country?

"A. No. As much as I know, I didn't belong, to destroy the country. I believe in helping the country, and helping the people. That was my life of living, not destroying the things that the people put up.

"Q. Are you attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States?

"A. That, I am.

"Q. What do you understand by that? What do you understand by those words 'attached to the principles of the Constitution?

"A. The way I understand this, when my country needs me, I fight for it and do what is right among the people."

On cross-examination the Government immediately put to petitioner the question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?" It also asked numerous other questions relating to Communist activities since 1946 that petitioner had successfully refused to answer when first examined. Petitioner again refused to answer, claiming the privilege against self-incrimination. The District Court ruled that by taking the stand in her own defense petitioner had abandoned the privilege, and directed her to answer. However, petitioner persisted in her refusal to answer any questions directed towards establishing that she had been a Communist since 1946. For this she was cast in contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 234 F. 2d 140. Deeming the record to raise important questions regarding the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and the power of a federal court to make summary disposition of a charge of criminal contempt, we brought the case here. 352 U. S. 908. Argument was had in the 1956 Term and the case set down for reargument in the present Term. 354 U. S. 907.

The conduct for which petitioner was found guilty of contempt was her sustained disobedience of the court's direction to answer pertinent questions on cross-examination after her claim of the privilege against self-incrimination had been overruled. On the first argument in this Court, petitioner stood on the validity of her claim of privilege as the essential ground for reversal here of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It was taken for granted by petitioner no less than by the Government that for a party insistently to block relevant inquiry on cross-examination subjects him to punishment for contempt in the exercise of the power vested in the federal courts throughout our history. Act of Sept. 24, 1789,