◆ SpookStack

gery. room wear eyeig: 2e so rere pe : Sr ren _ ‘ i i : Sor a , 7 : 4, | t : 3 ! : : Hi : 7 4 1 : 4 wre se ne t ia oP Bat Swe te. Met ME Ue «Matera! ory “AMERSAY CHUL LISESTIES UtOH, 176 FIFTH AVENUE, OD 2 YORE 19, WY, ERNEST ANGELL MORRIS L. ERNST « FATIIT PAU RPHY MAGI Chai . 22 b Counsel = pvesgte Saecucive Cirect Board of Directors “ve “m 3bh357 see ees \ gFP 19 1973 — weer! ‘ \; YEROXED ORIGINAL-RETAIN youn a ORegon 5.5990 Alan Reiman, Pubtie 2elations Director retrace, « Weekly Bulletin #1730 Decenter 25 . : vo an ACLU CRITICISES FEDERAL LAlUNITY Law AD The Américan Citil Liberties Union recently criticized the Wl “sderal Immunity ! Law, as the United Ststes Supreme Court heard argument on the law's constitutionality. . The high court heard the appeal of William Ludwiz Ullmann, convicted Sar contempt last Narch for failing to testify before a federal grand fury in i Yorx City investigating ‘orld War II espionage, although granted inmunity fr prosecution. are yond ace eam ects: fp meen mood + Patrick siurphy Malin, ACLU executive director, said that the grovp’s sole interest was the consbitutionalit v and wisdom a the wae teing tested for the firsu tise in the Ullmann case. e emphasized 21 ACLU's Statement was not a criticism of the grand jury's snvectines espionage gc. "The 1954 immunity law establishes chat, following the approve? coirt, imaunity from prosecuticn can be granted to persons who cculd rely on their constituti:ral privilege against seif-inerimination in to give testimony to cengcescional committees and grand juries. "The ACLU eoposed ‘this lew when it was first proposed, because +2 telieved +t Was violative of ci iiterviss, and we are still firmly opposed to it. jJections are based on she uncertain protection and vague scope of *he anu, the self-decradation suffered by witnesses vho are reauired to Out past activities -- which may not be criminal --, and that in? Sut Sommurnist activities -- the main purpose of the law -- is already 2 "Tt is not clear, ‘under this law, whether witnesses who accent “estify before federal agencies will also be protected against stz Tee courts may held that the ievaunit ty grant dees not cover state mat Congress nad ne right to limit state prosecutions. When a person it give possible incriminating evidence and he does not know what his : .. che fair procedures of due process, guarenteed by the Fifth Amendment, 2 being observed. "The 40LU corsiders the immunity law as unwise because we bali oriviless srai self-incrimination should also include protectio: + ._ cegradation, ils the courts tcday might not accept this view, we: .. tre past rulings ef judgss of varicus courts should still apply, thau rors shoud be pretacted ezainst giving seli-decrading testimony. "sir democratic System 1s based on the concept of fairness and i tent of she individual, and the full power of governnen*s‘s huuld not “ear to force a perscn te eandamn himself by his cum vords. The rovection arainst seif-incrivination is rocted in ‘he hi stericsl 9 maintain their nolitical beliefs despite government eff MPLS Le lich would result in criminal prosecuticns. And even df persons venot dissiose: criminal aciivittes, non-crininal disciasures abeu: itters could subiect them to severe punishment. Under the 1650 i: 6 they could he denied PAssporss and govarunant employment , or e- ‘ possible isprisorment, ‘os snotenLially denrercus in a tine of nati n-: -imann case oefore the Supreme Cours ‘concerns enue Qs toy stdintiry werlous phones of Ge : rotn purpose of the ft: : ‘ey t At ; ‘ $s santana by fercin Wag tao aeth 4000 oration on this Sud ject, The a waceinises the dances tl om tk a 4. subversinn and has npver opposed inquiry and action by pisces: