After appellee had produced in an administrative proceeding
records kept under a requirement of the Price Administrator's
regulations, the Price Administrator petitioned the district court
to institute criminal contempt proceedings against him for
violating an injunction against selling used cars at over-ceiling
prices. The court appointed the United States Attorney and the OPA
District Enforcement Attorney as "attorneys to prosecute the
criminal charges . . . on behalf of the Court and of the United
States." Appellee's motion to dismiss was granted on the ground
that he was entitled under § 202(g) of the Emergency Price Control
Act to immunity from prosecution. The Government appealed to this
Court under the Criminal Appeals Act.
Held:
1. The United States was, in any relevant sense, a party to the
proceedings, and the appeal was properly brought under the Criminal
Appeals Act. Pp.
335 U. S.
78-79.
2. Appellee was not entitled to immunity under § 202(g) of the
Price Control Act, and the rule to show cause should not have been
dismissed.
See Shapiro v. United States, ante, p.
335 U. S. 1. P.
335 U. S.
79.
68 F. Supp. 53 reversed.
Page 335 U. S. 78
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
On Feb. 27, 1946, the Price Administrator filed a petition, in
the District Court for the District of Columbia, to institute
criminal contempt proceedings against appellee. The petition
charged appellee with having made numerous sales of used cars at
over-ceiling prices in violation of an injunction previously issued
by the District Court. A rule to show cause was issued, but was
dismissed on motion of the appellee on the ground that he was
entitled to immunity under § 202(g) of the Emergency Price Control
Act from prosecution for the transactions upon which the petition
was founded. 68 F. Supp. 53.
The Government brought this appeal, under the provisions of the
Criminal Appeals Act,
* to review the
decision of the District Court. The main issue is the same as that
presented in the companion case,
Shapiro v. United States,
ante, p.
335 U. S. 1, but two
additional minor questions are raised:
1. Appellee urges that the appeal was not properly taken by the
United States, because the Government was not a party to the
proceedings in the District Court. The record shows, however, that
the litigation was instituted in that court by a petition of the
OPA District Enforcement Attorney on behalf of the Price
Administrator. When the rule to show cause was issued, the court
appointed the United States Attorney and the OPA District
Enforcement Attorney as
"attorneys to prosecute
Page 335 U. S. 79
the criminal charges contained in the petition filed herein on
behalf of the Court and of the United States."
See Rule 42(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 327
U.S. 865-866. Thus, the United States was, in any relevant sense, a
party to the proceedings, and the appeal was properly brought under
the Criminal Appeals Act.
See United States v. Goldman,
277 U. S. 229,
277 U. S. 235;
Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87,
267 U. S. 115
et seq.
2. The Government mentions a further consideration, not involved
in the
Shapiro case. The record does not state that the
appellee was sworn and produced the records under oath, a condition
precedent to the attainment of immunity under a 1906 Amendment, 49
U.S.C. § 48, to the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893. It is
unnecessary to consider this contention, both because it does not
appear to have been duly raised in the court below and because the
grounds considered and the views set forth in our opinion in the
Shapiro case suffice to dispose of this appeal.
The decision of the District Court is reversed, and the case
remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER dissents for the reasons stated in his
dissenting opinion in
Shapiro v. United States, supra.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON and MR. JUSTICE MURPHY dissent for the
reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE JACKSON's dissenting opinion in
Shapiro v. United States, supra.
MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE dissents
for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v.
United States, supra.
* 34 Stat. 1246, as amended by 56 Stat. 271, 18 U.S.C.Supp. V, §
682, and by § 238 of the Judicial Code as amended, 28 U.S.C. §
345.
