United States v. Bernhard Deutch
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Per curiam
An indictment charged that Deutch “unlawfully refused to answer” five specific questions put to him by a Committee of Congress.
The District Court dismissed the indictment as insufficient because it did not charge that the defendant willfully refused. The trial court concluded that since the recent decision in Quinn v. United States, 1955, 349 U.S. 155, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 L.Ed. 964, the word “willfully” was required in the indictment to make out a charge under the statute.
2 U.S.C.A. § 192, 1 under which the indictment was drawn, provides:
“Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Quinn v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- In Re ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. LamontDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Chapman v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1896
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. Corliss Lamont, United States of America v. Abraham Unger, United States of America v. Albert ShadowitzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Lloyd Barenblatt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- United States v. Thomas Parisi, United States of America v. Charles Joseph O'BrienCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
- United States v. O'BRIENDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1965
- Harry Sacher v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.