Blau v. United States

Background

A man was summoned to appear before a federal grand jury in Denver and declined to answer questions about the activities of the Communist Party, citing his right against self-incrimination. He also refused to say where his wife was, because she had told him her location, and she was wanted as a grand jury witness. The district judge overruled both claims of privilege, sentenced the man to six months for contempt, and a federal appeals court affirmed that sentence.

Reasoning

The Court concluded that it was wrong to deny his claim of protection against self-incrimination. The Court then considered whether the husband had to reveal his wife’s location. Citing earlier decisions, the majority explained that communications between spouses are presumptively private and that the Government offered no proof to overcome that presumption. Given that the wife had “hidden out” and other witnesses had been jailed, the Court found it likely her disclosure to her husband was confidential. The majority held the husband was entitled to the marital-communication protection and reversed the contempt conviction.

Real world impact

This ruling makes it harder to jail someone who refuses to testify when they invoke the right against self-incrimination or when they refuse to disclose a spouse’s confidential communication. Prosecutors must rebut the presumption that a marital communication was private before forcing disclosure. The decision reversed the particular contempt sentence in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting opinion argued that not every spousal communication is confidential and that where disclosure is not intended to be private, the privilege should not apply; the dissent would have affirmed the conviction.