Grand Jury Proceedings. United States of America v. John Sun Kung Kang
In the Matter of GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John SUN KUNG KANG, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order committing appellant to jail for civil contempt upon the appellant’s refusal to obey an order of the district court compelling him to answer questions put to him by a federal grand jury and repeated to him by the district court in issuing its order. Prior to appellant’s refusal to answer the questions that were the subject of the contempt proceeding, appellant had been granted transactional immunity.
Appellant, an indigent, had requested appointment of counsel to represent him in the civil contempt proceeding. The *1369 district court denied the request on the ground that it had no authority to appoint counsel. We have been able to discover no authority specifically requiring appointment of counsel to represent an indigent in a civil contempt proceeding brought to compel a witness to answer questions before a grand jury.
We have concluded that an indigent witness is entitled to appointed counsel in such a proceeding. Threat of imprisonment is the coercion that makes a civil contempt proceeding effective. The civil label does not obscure its penal nature.
(Cf.
Harris v. United States (1965) 382 U.S. 162 , 86 S.Ct. 352 , 15 L.Ed.2d 240 ; United States v. Dinsio (9th Cir. 1972) 468 F.2d 1392 .)
It is unnecessary to reach the remaining questions presented on appeal, and we decline to do so.
The order is reversed with directions to appoint counsel for appellant if the contempt proceeding is resumed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(right to appointed counsel in civil contempt proceeding based on witness’ refusal to answer questions before a grand jury)
-
(indigent person is entitled to 20 appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding that involves the threat of imprisonment)
-
(“[A]n indigent witness is entitled to appointed counsel in [a contempt proceeding]. 21 Threat of imprisonment is the coercion that makes a civil contempt proceeding effective. 22 The civil label does not obscure its penal nature.”)
Cited by 34 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals11
- Federal District Courts7
- State Highest Courts11
- State Appellate Courts4
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.