◆ SpookStack

. 9 Ct . that his clain of privilege against self-incrininstion should have been sus- 1 “disclosing confidential communications between kushand aad wife since the goverment failed to overcome the presumption that the communications were 7 eonfidemtial, 28 | Rogers v. United States (1951) 340 U.S. MT Atter testifying without objection that she hed been Treasurer + of the Coumunist Party of Denver, had been in possession of its records end had turned them over to another persons, petitioner refused to identify the person te whom she had delivered the records, giving az her only reason her desire to protect the other person, The Supreme Court sustained her eon viction fer contempt. It held that the privilege egainst self-incrimizetion | was solely. for the benefit of the witness and could not be asserted for the benefit of another. It also held that records kept in a representative, _ Father than a personal capacity, cannot be the subject of the personal | | privilege against self-iacrimination, even though production of them might incriminate bheir keeper personally. 2 0.) wie hee Lots gems Kasinowitz v.-U, 5., cert. denied, 340 U.S. 920°(191) ©: 2. .» “s Kasinowltz, Steinberg, and Dobbs were found guilty of criminal contempt in U. S. District Court, for refusing to answer questions in grand Jury investigation of Communist movement, on ‘ground that they would inerin{nate themselves by answering such questions, and they appealed. The Court of Appeals held that defendants were Justified in refusing t to ‘answer the questions. Judguwent reversed. Estes v. Potter, cert, denied, 340 U.S. 920 (1951) es; foe ee a2 a a es a ee een — 1 Proceeding in patter of Sepplsicatioa ror puni shme née OL or Fred Estes for continuous refusal to answer questions as ordered by the court 3..0/Ngeiaed, 8 Oise held that be was entitled te rely on the privilege against we ats