Talk:List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court

Capitalization consistency?
Can someone please fix the consistency of capitalization in the table's third column?

Shrillpicc100 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is Quinn vrs United States of 1955 Missing?
This case spells out that due process rights of the 14th amendment apply to Congressional investigations, which is kind of an important point of case law today.

"Our view that a clear disposition of the witness' objection is a prerequisite to prosecution for contempt is supported by long-standing tradition here and in other English-speaking nations. 36 In this country the tradition has been uniformly recognized in the procedure of both state and federal courts. 37 It is further reflected in the practice of congressional committees prior to the enactment of § 192 in 1857; a specific direction to answer was the means then used to apprise a witness of the overruling of his objection. 38 Against this background § 192 became law. 39 No relaxation of the safeguards afforded a witness was contemplated by its sponsors. In explaining the bill in the House, Congressman Davis expressly stated that committee powers were not increased, that no added burden was placed upon the witness and that a 'mere substitution' of a judicial proceeding for punishment at the bar of Congress was intended. 40 The reason for enacting § 192 went to the punishment and not the offense. It was recognized that the power of Congress to deal with a contemnor by its own processes did not extend beyond the life of any session. 41 By making contempt of Congress a crime, a fixed term of imprisonment was substituted for variable periods of congressional custody dependent upon the fortuity of whether the contemnor had been called to testify near the beginning or the end of a session. 42 But there is nothing to indicate that this change in the mode of punishment affected in any way the well-established elements of contempt of Congress. Since the enactment of § 192, the practice of specifically directing a recalcitrant witness to answer has continued to prevail. 43 In fact, the very committee involved here, the House Un-American Activities Committee, originally followed this practice 44 and recently resumed it. 45

"Giving a witness a fair apprisal of the committee's ruling on an objection recognizes the legitimate interests of both the witness and the committee. Just as the witness need not use any particular form of words to present his objection, so also the committee is not required to resort to any fixed verbal formula to indicate its disposition of the objection. So long as the witness is not forced to guess the committee's ruling, he has no cause to complain. And adherence to this traditional practice can neither inflict hardship upon the committee nor abridge the proper scope of legislative investigation.

"Petitioner also attacks his conviction on grounds involving novel constitutional issues. He contends that the House Resolution authorizing the committee's operations is invalid under the First Amendment. In addition, petitioner contends that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on the alleged bias of the indicting grand jury. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to pass on these issues.

"The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

"Reversed."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/349/155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.135.141 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)