About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

21 Fed. Juror 1 (1950)

handle is hein.journals/fjbfgj21 and id is 1 raw text is: THE FEDERAL JUROR Vol. XXI, No. 1 Published by The Federal Grand Jury Association For the Southern District of New York January, 19$0 Shaw Cites Need of The Self-Incrimination Plea- Public Education Is it Ground for Disbarment? From the Annual Address of A. Vere Shaw, President, The Federal Grand Jury Association at the Lotus Club in New York City, on Thursday, Nov. 10th. We hope to bring to this community a full realization of the worth of the jury system in safe- guarding our liber- ties, Mr. A. Vere Shaw, President, stated in his annual report to the Fed- eral Grand Jury As- sociation for the } Southern District of New York at the annual meeting and dinner held November 10, 1949, at the Lotus Club, New York City. In summarizing the year's activities of the Association, Mr. Shaw empha- sized the work done and the work in progress of the Joint Committee on Education of the Grand Jury Associa- tions of the New York area. The two- (Continued on page 4) Annual Meeting Held November 10th The Federal Grand Jury Association for the Southern District of New York held its annual meeting Nov. 10 at the Lotus Club, New York City. Mr. A. Vere Shaw, President, presided and in his annual address, summarized the year's activities of the Association. After the completion of the regular business of the meeting, Mr. Edwin J. Lukas, Executive Director of the Society for the Prevention of Crime, addressed the meeting on the topic What Makes a Criminal-Fact and Myth. Mr. John T. Ogden, member of the executive board, and Mr. John Brunini, member at large, engaged in a debate before a receptive audience. Executive board members expressed gratification for the large and enthusiastic attend- ance. Last spring when Whitaker Cham- bers' lawyer, during the Hiss-Chambers trial, refused to answer questions on the witness stand on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate him, his action drew a storm of protest. The Special Federal Grand Jury of New York, impaneled on December 15, 1948, which sat on this case, handed up a presentment asking if disciplinary action could not be taken against an attorney in these circumstances. Has an attorney, as a court officer, the same immunity under this provision as a Affirmative John T. Ogden, President, Ogden Publishing Company. Author and editor; Chairman of the Board, Sea- man's House Y.M.C.A.; Trustee, Christian Colleges in China. I have found the legal profession quite divided in its opinion as to whether an attorney is an officer of the court when he is testifying as a witness. Some be- lieve that he always holds that status. An- other argues that an at- torney is an officer of the court only during the very limited period when he is engaged in the business of the court. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to put it this way: whenever an attorney is called to the witness stand, he ceases automatically to hold any privileged position as a member of the court. He there becomes an ordinary citizen. If you take the latter view, there is really no argument. The proposition falls to the ground of its own weight. The attorney is just a citizen, and the Constitution protects him. (Continued on page 3) private citizen? Does a plea on this ground demonstrate a lack of integrity that makes him unfit to practice before the bar? These and similar questions were bandied about in the press; courts and bar associations were ap- pealed to; but to date the questions raised remain unanswered. With a view to clarifying the issue for our members, a debate was held at our November meeting. The major points of this debate are set forth in the following para- graphs: Negative John Gilland Brunini, author, editor and poet; Foreman of the Special Federal Grand Jury, Dec. 15, 1948, to June 16, 1950, impaneled to investigate espionage and subversive activities. As I understand it, the subject of the debate this afternoon was chosen be- cause of a particular paragraph in a presentment handed up last April by the Special Federal Grand Jury of New York impaneled ' on Dec. 15, 1948, to investigate espionage and subversive activi- ties. Now when I was in college, one was as- signed to defend a prop- osition with all his force X irrespective of his par- ticular belief in either his side or his arguments. Having left such days far behind me, I do not find that I can defend that which has not won my conviction. And that is the circum- stance today. It is pertinent to state that the Grand Jury presentment itself did not take a stand on the debate's subject. This document, widely publicized as it has (Continued on page 3) DEBATE Should an attorney-an officer of the court-be permitted to continue the practice of law after he exercises, on the witness stand, his constitutional right to refuse to answer a question on the ground that it tends to incriminate him?

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most