Simkin v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
715 F.2d 34 (1983)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Morris Simkin (defendant) distributed illegal drugs. Prior to his sentencing on a criminal drug charge in May 1982, Simkin resolutely refused to disclose to the government (plaintiff) his suppliers or customers out of fear for his and his family’s safety. Simkin was sentenced on the drug charge. Thereafter, Simkin was called as a witness before a grand jury and granted immunity to testify. Simkin again refused to disclose his drug suppliers and customers out of fear of reprisal. In November 1982, the district court found Simkin in civil contempt and ordered him confined until he testified, but no longer than the 18-month term of the grand jury. Simkin applied to the court four times within one year for termination of his civil-contempt sanction on grounds that Simkin was “irrevocably committed not to answer” the grand jury’s questions due to fear of reprisal and his religious beliefs, which were antithetical to informants. Simkin argued that the civil-contempt sanction no longer had a coercive effect and had become punitive. The court denied each of Simkin’s applications, making mixed comments as to whether the court was considering Simkin’s individual circumstances or denying his applications as a rule. Simkin appealed the denial of his last application.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
