◆ SpookStack

sh biegm ee 23+ te direct biz te answer. ‘Held, that ds a trial fer violation of 2 5.5.0. af oy ‘ . + : , : . t, neo . ft , 192, the District Court should have extered a judgnent © of acquittal since oe the committee had fat led to lay the necessary ‘foundation fer a prosecution. Footy vet Bart v. GU, 5. (1955) 349 U.S. 219 Summoned to testify before a congressional investigating ~~ committee, petitioner refused to answer certain questions, on the ground of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimi nation. The com- mittee did mot specifically overrule his objection or direct him to amswer, Held: In his trial for a violation of 2 0.5.C. 192, the District 7 Court should have entered a judgment of acquittal, ‘because the committee | had failed to lay the necessary foundation for a prosecution under $192. Reverzed, Peters v. Hobby (1955) 349 U.S. 331 . | Petitioner was removed from federal employment after the Loyalty Review Board determined that there was reasonable doubt as to his loyalty. After petitioner hed been cleared by an Agency Board of charges of member- . ship in the Communist Party and ‘association with Comaunists and Communist symphathizers, the Loyalty Review Board conducted a "post-andit™ of the Agency Board's determination and reached a contrary conclusion. The Supreme Court held that under Executive Order No. 9835, the Loyalty Review Board had no jurisdiction to review the case on its own motion end held the order invalid,