Adams v. Maryland (347 U.S. 179)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 8, 1954 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 347 U.S. 179 · 74 S. Ct. 442
- Docket
- No. 271
- Argued
- January 7, 1954
- Decided
- March 8, 1954
- Term
- October Term 1953
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Black
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black (wrote), Justice Douglas, Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice Reed, Justice Minton, Justice R. H. Jackson (wrote a concurrence)
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice Frankfurter
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. In response to a summons the petitioner Adams appeared to testify before a Senate Committee investigating crime. Answering questions he confessed to having run a gambling business in Maryland. That confession has been used in this case to convict Adams of conspiring to violate Maryland's antilottery laws. The trial court sentenced Adams to pay a fine of $2,000 and serve seven years in the state penitentiary. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed, rejecting Adams’ contention that use of the committee testimony against him was forbidden by a provision in a federal statute. 202 Md. 455, 97 A. 2d 281. That provision, now 18 U. S. C. § 3486, set out in full below, provides that no testimony given by a witness in congressional inquiries “shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court . . . .” The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Adams had testified before the Committee “voluntarily” and was therefore not protected by § 3486. We granted certiorari because a proper understanding of the scope of this Section is of importance to the national government, to the states and to witnesses summoned before congressional committees. 346 U. S. 864. In this Court Maryland contends that the Section does not bar use of Adams’ testimony because: (1) He waived the statutory “privilege” by testifying…
Excerpt of a 10,387-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.