Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

174 F.2d 525

Docket No. 9851.

Bryan v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 7, 1949.

Decided April 8, 1949.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-04-08

Cited by 2 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1950

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“as a matter of law, that the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives was a validly constituted committee of the Congress, and was at the time of the defendant’s appear anee.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Bryan

Relies on 72 F. Supp. 58 - United States v. Bryan · Fleischman v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1949-04-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See also D.C., 72 F.Supp. 58.

¶2Mr. Benedict Wolf, of New York City, of the bar of the State of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, and Mr. O. John Rogge, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶3*526Mr. Charles B. Murray, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C, was on the brief for appellee. Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

¶4Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Like the appellant in Fleischman v. United States, —, U.S.App.D.C. -, 174 F.2d 519, decided today, the present appellant has been convicted of willfully making défault before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives after being summoned to produce before it the records of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee. Unlike Fleischman, the present appellant was custodian of the records and refused to produce them before some members of the Congressional Committee on April 4, 1946. The court instructed the jury in effect that a quorum of the Congressional Committee was present. For reasons set forth in our opinion in the Fleischman case, we think this was a material question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury.

¶7Reversed.

¶8PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge

¶9(dissenting).

¶10I think that this judgment should be affirmed. The reasons for my dissent are stated in the dissenting opinion in Fleisch-man v. United States, - U.S.App.D.C. —, 174 F.2d 519.

/174/f2d/525 · .json · Public domain