In Re McDonough

California Court of Appeal Jun 7, 1937 No. Crim. 1971Published

Before: Cashin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a witness may not refuse to answer questions before a grand jury based on the alleged unlawful acquisition of evidence, nor does a witness have grounds to refuse testimony simply because they have been accused of criminal acts by public officials.

Issues

Whether a witness may refuse to answer grand jury questions based on the allegedly unlawful acquisition of the information underlying those questions.
Whether a witness may refuse to answer grand jury questions on the basis that they have been accused of criminal acts by public officials.

Disposition. Petition denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If it be a fact that evidence was obtained in an unlawful manner, this is no objection to its use for the purpose of the investigation”

“a grand jury investigation is not a criminal proceeding but one for the purpose of determining whether any criminal proceeding shall be commenced and petitioner has but the status of a witness”

CASHIN, J.

—A petition for writ of

habeas corpus.

Petitioner avers that he is illegally restrained and deprived of his liberty by an order of the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco, adjudging him to be in contempt and committing him to prison. The order was based on his refusal to answer as a witness certain questions asked by the grand jury of said city and county. His refusal was not based upon the ground that his answers would tend to incriminate or degrade him, but that evidence, tending to show criminal acts by certain police officers, having been obtained through a telephone leading into petitioner’s office (which method he alleges to be unlawful), and the questions having been based on information so obtained, he would, should he answer, be aiding and abetting an unlawful use of such information; further, that none of the questions so asked was pertinent, relevant or material to the investigation being conducted, and that the district attorney and his associates have caused and permitted statements to appear in the press and elsewhere charging the petitioner with being an accomplice in acts involving the police officers mentioned.

The proceedings as conducted, and the requirement that he answer, are claimed to have been violative of certain of his constitutional rights, and that as a consequence the superior court was without jurisdiction to make the order complained of.

If it be a fact that evidence was obtained in an unlawful manner, this is no objection to its use for the purpose of the investigation

(People

Mayen,

188 Cal. 237 [205 Pac. 435, 24 A. L. R. 1383] ;

Herrscher

State Bar,

4 Cal. (2d) 399 [49 Pac. (2d) 832]); and petitioner, by answering the questions, would in no sense be aiding or abetting an unlawful act. Moreover, as held in

In re Lemon,

15 Cal. App. (2d) 82 [59 Pac. (2d) 213], a grand jury investigation is not a criminal proceeding but one for the purpose of determining whether any criminal proceeding shall be commenced and petitioner has but the status of a witness, and can claim only the privilege protecting a witness from self-incrimination. (See, also,

In Re McDonough

AI Brief

CASHIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief