Summary
affirming civil contempt sanction imposed on a prisoner who refused to answer questions during grand jury proceedings because of fear for his life, holding that “fear of physical harm does not excuse a witness from testifying”
Summary of this case from Barnett v. NormanOpinion
No. 75-2135.
June 11, 1975.
Landon R. Estep, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant.
Stanley G. Pitkin, U.S. Atty., Harry McCarthy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before CHAMBERS, WRIGHT and SNEED, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
The case is submitted without oral argument.
Dupuy is a prisoner serving a state imposed sentence at the Washington state penitentiary at Walla Walla. He was brought before a federal grand jury in Seattle, where he refused to answer questions put to him on the ground of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and on the ground that his fear that his life would be endangered by his fellow prisoners if he testified constituted "just cause" under 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) to refuse to testify. Dupuy's Fifth Amendment claim was disposed of when the district court granted him testimonial immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002. The district court imposed a civil contempt sanction.
No federal court in a reported decision has held that fear of retaliation is sufficient reason to refuse to testify. To do so in this case would mean that virtually every prisoner in the United States, and many millions of people at large, would be freed of the duty to appear and testify before a grand jury. We choose to follow the reported decisions of those courts which have already held that fear of physical harm does not excuse a witness from testifying. United States v. Doe, 478 F.2d 194 (1st Cir. 1973); In re Kilgo, 484 F.2d 1215 (4th Cir. 1973); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 509 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1975); LaTona v. United States, 449 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.