Curtin v. United States
236 U.S. 96 (1915)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Curtin v. United States, 236 U.S. 96 (1915)

Curtin v. United States

No. 472

Argued December 16, 1914

Decided January 25, 1915

236 U.S. 96

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Burdick v. United States, ante, p. 236 U. S. 79.

The facts, which are similar to those involved in the preceding case, are stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error was argued and submitted at the same time as Burdick v. United States, just decided, ante, p. 236 U. S. 79. Its purpose is to review a judgment for contempt against Curtin upon presentment of the federal grand jury for refusing to answer certain questions in the same proceeding considered in the Burdick case in regard to a certain article published in the New York Tribune. Curtin is a reporter on that paper. He declined to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would tend to incriminate him. At a subsequent hearing, a pardon issued by the President was offered him (it was the same in substance as that offered Burdick), and he was again questioned. He declined to receive the pardon or to answer the questions, on the same ground as before. He was, on presentment of the grand jury, adjudged guilty of

Page 236 U. S. 97

contempt, fined as Burdick was, with the same leave to purge himself of the contempt, the court deciding that the pardon was valid and sufficient for immunity. Upon Curtin's again refusing to answer, the judgment was made absolute and he was committed to the custody of the United States Marshal.

It will be observed, therefore, the case is almost identical in its facts with the Burdick case, and exactly the same in principle. On the authority of that case, therefore, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to dismiss the proceedings in contempt and discharge Curtin from custody.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.