◆ SpookStack

Petitioner was convicted ef a vicletion ef 2 U.S.C. $192, which ay > makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as & witness by either een 7 ae House of Congress or any committee thereof to refuse to answer any | question "pertinent to the question under inquiry", Summoned to testify before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un- American Activities, petitioner testified freely about his own activities and essociations; but he refused to answer questions at to whether he had known certain other persons to have been members of the Communist Party. He ased hi proper scope of the Committee's activities and not relevant to its work. - No clear understanding of the "questions under inquiry" could be gleaned “ ¥ from the resolution authorizing the full committee, the legislative history thereof, the Committee's practices thereunder, the action authorizing the Subcommittee, the statements of the chairman at the opening of the hearings or his statement in response to petitioner's protest. The U. S. Supreme Court held: Petitioner was mot accorded a fair opportunity te determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and case remanded to District Court with instructions to dismiss indictment. Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) 354 U.S, 234 In an investigation conducted by State Attorney General, acting on behalf of State Legislature under a broad resolution directing him to determine whether there were "subversive persons" in the State and to