Earl Warren

“ The majority thought that this abandonment in effect erased petitioner's objections from the committee record and that they were thus faced with 'naked refusals to answer' [6] which did not require affirmative rulings from the committee. We cannot agree. The objections were in fact made before the committee and the witness was entitled to a clear-cut ruling at that time, even though the claims were later abandoned or found to be invalid. Quinn v. United States, supra. Without such a ruling, evidence of the requisite criminal intent to violate § 192 is lacking. ”

“ On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the judgment upon three of the counts and, one judge dissenting, affirmed as to the others. [2] From that decision, we granted certiorari [3] and set the case down for argument along with the two companion cases. ”