Volume 245 — Maryland Reports

WITNESSES — <italic>Self-Incrimination — Waiver Of Privilege — Grand</italic><italic>Jury Testimony — Where There Was No Evidence To Show The</italic><italic>Subject-Matter Of A Witness' Grand Jury Testimony, It Was Not</italic><italic>Possible To Determine Whether The Witness Waived His Privilege</italic><italic>Against Self-Incrimination By Appearing Before The Grand Jury</italic>. The appellant had been cited for contempt of court for refusing to testify as a witness at a trial of another person on a charge of criminal solicitation, the appellant being the person alleged to have been solicited. The appellant was called to the stand, and, by his counsel, refused to testify on grounds of self-incrimination. The prosecuting attorney put no questions to the appellant, but offered him immunity from prosecution as to all matters about which he might testify. The court ruled that this immunity was insufficient to overcome the privilege. The prosecuting attorney then advised the court that the appellant had twice testified before the grand jury in relation to matters material to the cases being tried, no evidence, however, being offered on this point. The court then ruled that the witness was compellable and had waived his privilege. The State renewed its offer of immunity and the defendant persisted in his claim of privilege. No specific questions were put to him, and he was committed for contempt. The Court <italic>held</italic> that it was impossible to pass on the question of waiver without evidence relating to testimony before the grand jury, and also found it unnecessary to pass on whether the appellant became a compellable witness by reason of the offer of immunity. pp. 172-173<page_number>Page 170</page_number> SELF-INCRIMINATION — <italic>Privilege Cannot Be Asserted Until</italic><italic>Potentially Incriminating Question Is Put To Witness — Whether</italic><italic>Answer To Question Might Be Incriminating Is A Matter For</italic><italic>Decision By Trial Court In The First Instance</italic>. pp. 173-174 CONTEMPT — <italic>Citation Because Of Failure To Testify — Refusal Of</italic><italic>A Witness To Testify On Grounds Of Possible Self-Incrimination</italic><italic>Was Not Punishable As Contempt Where No Questions Were Actually</italic><italic>Put To Witness — Contempt Citation Would Be Reversed Even Though</italic><italic>Witness Acted Improperly In Making Claim Of Privilege Before</italic><italic>Questions Were Asked Of Him</italic>. p. 174 G.W.L. <italic>Decided January 10, 1967</italic>.

<p>September Term, 1966.]</p>

CUSTODY OF INFANTS — <italic>Adulterous Mother — Award Of Custody To</italic><italic>Father Of Two Daughters Upheld — Case Remanded To Resolve</italic><italic>Mother's Visitation Rights</italic>. pp. 701-703 DIVORCE — <italic>Denial Of — On Grounds Of Adultery, Upheld, Where</italic><italic>Wife's Adultery Had Been Forgiven By Husband's Conduct — No Proof</italic><italic>Of Cruelties Alleged In Wife's Cross-Bill Other Than Her Own</italic><italic>Testimony — Award of $500 For Wife's Attorney's Fee Upheld</italic>. pp. 701-703 H.C. <italic>Decided March 17, 1967</italic>.

DIVORCE — <italic>Adultery — Condonation — Condonation Is Forgiveness</italic><italic>With Implied Condition That Marital Offenses Not Be Repeated —</italic><italic>Where Illicit Relationship Of Spouse Continues After Condonation,</italic><italic>Right To Remedy For Former Marital Offenses Revives</italic>. p. 704 G.W.L. <italic>Decided April 5, 1967</italic>.