◆ SpookStack

- = 39 = ‘recomend further legislation om that subject, appellant answered most | ‘questions asked bis, includisg whether he was @ Communist; but be refused to answer questions related to (1) the contents of a lecture he had | ‘delivered at the State University, and (2) his knowledge of the Pro-— ‘gressive Party of the State and its members. He did not plead his — privilege against seif-eincrimination, but based his refusal to answer such questions on the grounds that they were not pertinent to the inquiry and - vholated his rights under the First Amendment. Persisting in his refusal when haled into a State Court and directed to answer be was adjudged guilty of contempt. This judgment was affirmed by the State Supreme Court, which construed the term "subversive persons” broadly enough to include persons engaged in conduct only remotely related to actual subversion and done | completely apart from any conscious intent to be a part of such activity. It also held that the need of the Legislature to be informed on the subject. of self-preservation of government outweighed the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred in the process. The U, S. Supreme Court held: on the record in this case, appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment were violated, and the judgment is reversed. Yates et al, v. U.S. (1957) 354 U.S. 298 The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were convicted of conspiring to commit crimes with specific intent of © eausing overthrow of the Government of the UD. S. by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit. The U. S, District Court entered Judgments of conviction and defendants appealed. The Court-of Appeals . held that evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of each of defendants