Legal Opinion
United States v. Sam Courtney
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided September 20, 1956No. 398, Docket 24185PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. The government, in support of the judge’s order, argues thus: Since defendant initially explained that he refused to answer because the answers would impair his business and harm other persons, his subsequent refusal, on Fifth Amendment grounds, was in bad faith and, on that account, should be disregarded. We do not agree. If he was clearly entitled to assert the privilege, his motives for doing so are immaterial. See Taft, J., in Ex parte Irvine, C.C., 74 F. 954, 964-965; cf. United States v. St. Pierre, 2 Cir., 128 F.2d 979, 980.
2. The government also contends that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- St. Pierre v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Emspak v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Ex parte IrvineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- United States v. Saundra PrescottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- United States v. Gondolfo Miranti, United States of America v. Domenico BandoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Marvin R. Cole v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Sandrelli v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- United States v. Emanuel BrownCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.