Slagle v. Ohio

Background

Five people were subpoenaed to appear and testify before the Ohio Un-American Activities Commission. Each appeared, was sworn, and, except for a few preliminary questions, objected to most questions largely on Fifth Amendment grounds (the right against self-incrimination). The Commission often appeared to sustain or acquiesce in those objections by passing to the next question, but in a few instances it expressly directed particular witnesses to answer specific questions. The Commission caused contempt prosecutions to be brought and each witness was tried and convicted on some counts of refusing to answer.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the convictions could stand when the Commission had not clearly announced that the objections were overruled and had not clearly required answers. The Court explained that a hearing body must make plain whether it sustains an objection or requires an answer. Where the Commission repeatedly sustained or acquiesced in objections and did not clearly direct answers, holding witnesses criminally liable for refusing to answer offended basic notions of fair play and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, the Court reversed the convictions for some witnesses and reversed parts of others.

Real world impact

The decision protects witnesses who object during investigatory hearings from contempt convictions when the tribunal does not clearly overrule the objection and order an answer. It puts a practical burden on legislative or investigatory bodies to state their rulings before prosecuting refusals, and some convictions in these cases were reversed while others were affirmed in part.

Dissents or concurrances

On related claims—such as whether Ohio’s immunity law shields witnesses from federal prosecution, whether questions were pertinent, and whether the investigation had a legislative purpose—the Court was equally divided, so those issues produced no majority ruling.