United States v. Yukio Abe

8 Citing cases

  1. Watkins v. United States

    354 U.S. 178 (1957)   Cited 300 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislative branch is not "a law enforcement or trial agency" as those "are functions of the executive and judicial departments"

    Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155; Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190; Bart v. United States, 349 U.S. 219.The first reported case in which the claim of the privilege against self-incrimination was allowed in a congressional inquiry proceeding was United States v. Yukio Abe, 95 F. Supp. 991. Prior thereto, several state courts had held that legislative investigations were subject to the witness' privilege not to accuse himself under state constitutions.

  2. Baker v. Eisenstadt

    456 F.2d 382 (1st Cir. 1972)   Cited 26 times
    Vacating multiple contempt convictions when defendant refused to answer forty-three questions in a single hearing

    See, e.g., Annotation, 2 L.Ed.2d 1594, 1595. United States v. Orman, 207 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1953); United States v. Kamin, 135 F. Supp. 382 (D.Mass. 1955): United States v. Emspak, 95 F. Supp. 1012 (D.D.C. 1951): United States v. Yukio Abe, 95 F. Supp. 991 (D.Hawaii 1950); People ex rel. Amarante v. McDonnell, 100 N.Y.S.2d 463 (Sup.Ct. 1950); 94 A.L.R.2d 1246, 1247-1248; 2 L.Ed.2d 95. A different situation exists when a witness is once punished for his refusal and is then recalled and asked the same or similar questions. Cases are collected in 94 A.L.R.2d 1246, 1254 ff.

  3. United States v. Emspak

    95 F. Supp. 1012 (D.D.C. 1951)   Cited 9 times

    Kerr v. Squier, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 308; Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283-285; Upshaw v. United States, 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 716, strongly indicate that no matter how many refusals to answer may occur in an examination such as is alleged, the maximum sentence that could be imposed pursuant to the Statute involved, Sec. 192, Title 2, U.S.C.A., would be punishment for not more than one refusal." United States v. Yukio Abe, D.C., ___ F. Supp. ___ Accordingly, the District Court of Hawaii refused to dismiss the indictments on the ground of duplicity, and deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss until after a trial on the general issue. Two recent State cases, Fawick Airflex Co. v. United Electrical, Radio Machine Workers of America, 1950, Ohio App., 92 N.E.2d 431, 436 and People ex rel. Amarante v. McDonnell, Sup. 1950, 100 N.Y.S.2d 463, considered a charge of separate contempts for refusal to answer a series of questions.

  4. United States v. Smith

    532 F.2d 158 (10th Cir. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    Allowing two criminal contempts for the defendant's refusal to testify in two successive trials because “the government had reason to expect that the defendant would testify” at the second trial

    See United States v. Costello, 198 F.2d 200, 204 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 874, 73 S.Ct. 166, 97 L.Ed. 677 (1952), rehearing denied, 344 U.S. 900, 73 S.Ct. 166, 97 L.Ed. 677 (1952). See also United States v. Orman, 207 F.2d 148, 160 (3d Cir. 1953) (cited by the Supreme Court in Yates, supra); United States v. Abe, 95 F. Supp. 991, 992 (D. Hawaii 1950); Annotation, 2 L.Ed.2d 1594, 1595 (1957). However, we do not have in the case at bar an attempt at multiplying offenses. From the record presented the government had reason to expect that the defendant would testify when called inasmuch as he had expressed some doubt prior to the second summons.

  5. United States v. Orman

    207 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1953)   Cited 38 times
    Vacating multiple contempt convictions when a defendant refused to answer multiple questions in a single hearing

    But where the separate questions seek to establish but a single fact, or relate to but a single subject of inquiry, only one penalty for contempt may be imposed. See United States v. Yukio Abe, D.C.Hawaii 1951, 95 F. Supp. 991, 992. Cf. Trumbo v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 176 F.2d 49, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 934, 70 S.Ct. 663, 94 L.Ed. 1353, rehearing denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 972, 70 S.Ct. 995, 94 L. Ed. 1379; Fawick Airflex Co. v. United Electrical Radio Machine Workers of America, Ohio App. 1950, 92 N.E.2d 431; People ex rel. Amarante v. McDonnell, Sup. 1950, 100 N.Y.S.2d 463.

  6. United States v. Provinzano

    50 F.R.D. 361 (E.D. Wis. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    In Masinia v. United States, 296 F.2d 871, 880 (8th Cir. 1961), the court observed that ‘ The offense of perjury may not be compounded by the repetitious asking of the same question’ . See also United States v. Yukio Abe, 94 F.Supp. 991 (D.C.Hawaii 1950). In the analogous area of contempt, the court said in United States v. Orman, 207 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1953), p. 160:

  7. Rowe v. Superior Court

    289 Conn. 649 (Conn. 2008)   Cited 30 times
    Concluding that defendant had preserved issue for appeal because theories related to single legal claim even though defendant had not raised each theory at trial

    Id., 160. As support for the broader subject of inquiry rule, the court in Orman cited United States v. Abe, 95 F. Sup. 991 (D. Haw. 1950). In that case, the witness had made "separate refusals to answer questions pertaining to the same general subject matter," namely, whether certain persons were members of the Communist party.

  8. In re Contempt Findings Against Schultz

    428 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 16 times

    "We deem it a fortiori true that where a witness draws a line of refusal . . . by declining to answer questions within a generally defined area of interrogation, the prosecutor cannot multiply contempts by further questioning within that area."See also, United States v. Yukio Abe, (D.C. Haw. 1950) 95 F. Supp. 991, 992; Annot. 94 A.L.R.2d 1256 (1964). The Court in Yates did not expressly consider whether the problem of multiple contempts was of constitutional dimension.