Counselman v. Hitchcock

142 U.S. 547 (1892)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Counselman (P) appeared before a grand jury, in response to a subpoena served upon him. The grand jury had been convened to investigate a criminal violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. P answered a number of questions but eventually began refusing to answer a number of questions on the grounds that it might tend to “criminate me.” The judge of the court granted a rule on P to show cause why he should not answer the said questions, a hearing was had, and the court made an order, on the 25th of November, 1890, which found that the excuses and reasons advanced on behalf of P, as to why he should not answer said questions, were wholly insufficient and directed that he appear before the grand jury without delay and answer. Once again P was again called before the grand jury, and the same questions, together with other kindred questions, were submitted to him to answer; and he refused to answer them and each of them, for the same reasons. After a hearing, the court on November 25, 1890, adjudged P to be in contempt of court, and made an order fining him $500 and the costs of the proceeding, and directing the marshal to take him into custody and hold him until he should have answered said questions. Marshall Hitchcock (D), jailed P. P filed for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.