Potter Stewart

Name: Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court
Author: Potter Stewart

Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Potter Stewart. It explores elements such as Kahns, petitioner and inferences.

Quotes from Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court (Potter Stewart)

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ We need not pass upon the correctness of the several lower court decisions upon which the petitioner relies, [8] for we think that even within the basic rationale of those cases reversible error was not committed in this case. In the first place, the record does not support any inference of prosecutorial misconduct. It is true, of course, that Mr. Fitzgerald announced that the Kahns would invoke their testimonial privilege if questioned. But certainly the prosecutor need not accept at face value every asserted claim of privilege, no matter how frivolous. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ The petitioner's principal contention is that reversible error was committed in permitting the Government to question the Kahns after it was known that they were going to claim their privilege not to incriminate themselves. It is said that when a witness is asked whether he participated in criminal activity with the defendant, a refusal to answer based on the privilege against self-incrimination tends to imply to the jury that a truthful answer would be in the affirmative. This inference, the petitioner argues, cannot properly be used as evidence against a criminal defendant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ None of the several decisions dealing with this question suggests that reversible error is invariably committed whenever a witness claims his privilege not to answer. Rather, the lower courts have looked to the surrounding circumstances in each case, focusing primarily on two factors, each of which suggests a distinct ground of error. First, some courts have indicated that error may be based upon a concept of prosecutorial misconduct, when the Government makes a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ On the other hand, courts have failed to find reversible error when such episodes were 'no more than minor lapses through a long trial.' United States v. Hiss, 185 F.2d 822, 832 (C.A.2d Cir.) . See also United States v. Amadio, 215 F.2d 605, 614 (C.A.7th Cir.) . And even when the objectionable inferences might have been found prejudicial, it has been held that instructions to the jury to disregard them sufficiently cured the error. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ Fitzgerald impliedly accepted the Kahns' testimony and attempted to use it on behalf of the petitioner in his argument to the jury. The petitioner would have us hold that even in these circumstances the court committed reversible error because it did not, sua sponte, take some affirmative action. We see no reason to require such extravagant protection against errors which were not obviously prejudicial and which the petitioner himself appeared to disregard. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ A second theory seems to rest upon the conclusion that, in the circumstances of a given case, inferences from a witness' refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant. This theory seems also to have been present to some extent in the Maloney decision, where the court noted that the challenged inferences were the only corroboration for dubious and interested testimony by the Government's chief witness. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.'
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Potter Stewart, Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ There remains for consideration a question concerning the correctness of the court's instruction on the subject of the Kahns' refusals to testify. This issue was nowhere mentioned in the petition for certiorari in this Court, and under our rules it is not before us. [11] Even if it were, we could not find that the instruction amounted to reversible error on the facts of this case. No objection was ever made to this instruction, even though counsel for the petitioner did object to other aspects of the charge. ”

Potter Stewart

Summary

Quotes from Namet v. United States — Opinion of the Court (Potter Stewart)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature