IN THE MATTER OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN SUN KUNG KANG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An indigent witness is entitled to appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding brought to compel testimony before a grand jury.
Appellant, an indigent, refused to answer grand jury questions after being granted transactional immunity and was ordered jailed for civil contempt. H…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Appointed Counsel For Indigent Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973)
-
In re Kilgo, 484 F.2d 1215 (4th Cir. 1973)
-
In re DI Bella, 518 F.2d 955 (2d Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1965)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Dinsio, 468 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1972)