◆ SpookStack

ADERISAT CHL LISESTIES UE co Yd, WY, ERNEST ANGEL MORRIS L. ERNST « PARC MURPHY Maun Chairman General Counsel preset Seecucive Citector Board of Direclon 36857 47 ORegon 8.5990 Veekly Bulletin #1730 ACLU CRITTCIIES FEDS! The Anérican Civil Literties Union recently criticized the 1934 ~ Imaunity Law, as the United States Supreme Court heard argument on the 13 constitutionality. . The high court heard the appeal of Willian Ludwiz Ullmann, co contempt last tiarch for failing to testify before a federal grand York City investigating torld War II espionage, although granted i: prosecution. Patrick siurphy Nalin, ACLU executive director, said that the erovp’s sole interest was the co utionality and wisdom of the was teing tested for in the Ullmann case. He empha ACLU's statement was not a criticism of the grand jury's investigati espionage, . roy Ea » ira 3 "The 1954 immunity law establishes chat, following the apprava! s! 2 £2 court, immunity from prosecuticn can be granted to persons who cculd 9-rer: rely on their constituti:ral privilege against seif-incrimination in retu: to give testimony to cc ional committees and grand juries. . "The ASIU epposed when it was first proposed, because tt was violative of ci 42s, and we are still firmly opposed +9 it ctions based cn the uncertain protection and vague scope of erent, the self-degradabicn suffered by witnesses who are reauired : aout past activities -- which may not be criminal --, and that 4 vitor ‘about Soxmunist activicies -- the main purpose of the law -- is already 27 "It is not clear, ‘under this law, whether witnesses who accert ‘estify before federal agencies will also be protected against st se courts may held that the inaunity grant dees not cover state ne: Congress rad ne right to limit state prosecutions. When a person x give possible incriminating eviaence and he does not know what his | whe fair procedures of due process, guarenteed by the Fifth Amervdino-, betrg observed. "The privilegs WU corsiders the inmunity lay as unwise because we bali inaticn should also includs protect: courts teday might not accept this view, judges of varicus courts should still apply, neted ezainst giving self-decrading testimony. “nr democratic system 1s based on the concept of fzirness and . d the full poxe government efferts ». 1 presecuticns. and even if person. rininal dis: onid be cenied passport ei by ta notenti ann case before the Supreme Court -concerns qu: : purpase of Dj2eby ¢ comises the ¢ rsioi and has ngver opposed inquiry and action by 4. sub