U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1949

Bryan v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 8, 1949 · Prettyman

174 F.2d 525; 84 U.S. App. D.C. 394; 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2240 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Benedict Wolf, of New York City, of the bar of the State of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, and Mr. O. John Rogge, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Charles B. Murray, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C, was on the brief for appellee. Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Bryan (Supreme Court of the United States 1950)
United States v. Stephen Bannon (ORDER IN SLIP OPINION FORMAT) (D.C. Cir. 2025)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Like the appellant in Fleischman v. United States, —, U.S.App.D.C. -, 174 F.2d 519, decided today, the present appellant has been convicted of willfully making défault before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives after being summoned to produce before it the records of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee. Unlike Fleischman, the present appellant was custodian of the records and refused to produce them before some members of the Congressional Committee on April 4, 1946. The court instructed the jury in effect that a quorum of the Congressional Committee was present. For reasons set forth in our opinion in the Fleischman case, we think this was a material question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury.

Reversed.

Dissenting Opinion

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

I think that this judgment should be affirmed. The reasons for my dissent are stated in the dissenting opinion in Fleisch-man v. United States, - U.S.App.D.C. —, 174 F.2d 519.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.