Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect of Immunity Statute

Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons\u27 membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner\u27s appeal from this order was dismissed by the court of appeals. Upon petitioner\u27s stipulated refusal to answer the questions, the district court held him in contempt and sentenced him to six months\u27 imprisonment unless he should purge himself of the contempt. The court of appeals affirmed. On certiorari to the Supreme Court, held, affirmed, two justices dissenting. The intent of the Fifth Amendment was to prevent the government from forcing a person to testify to matters which would make him liable for criminal prosecution. Once the threat of criminal prosecution is removed, the purpose of the amendment has been served and the witness has no right to refuse to testify. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)

Future Interests - Possibilities of Reverter - Constitutionality of Retroactive Limitation

The township school trustees brought actions under the Reverter Act to have the possibilities of reverter contained in the deeds to two currently unused school tracts declared invalid. In each case the trial court held that the possibility of reverter was alienable and that the Reverter Act was unconstitutional, being an ex post facto law and in violation of the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. On appeal, held, reversed. Since possibilities of reverter in Illinois are merely expectancies subject to change, modification, or abolition by legislative action, the act does not result in an unconstitutional taking of property. Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1 v. Batdorf, 6 Ill. (2d) 486, 130 N.E. (2d) 11 I (1955)

Criminal Law - Trial - Duty of Judge to Instruct on Lesser and Included Crimes

Appellant was one of four defendants who were charged in three separate counts of an indictment with the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree with intent to commit robbery and grand larceny. After all the evidence had been entered, the trial judge submitted only the count of attempted robbery to the jury, instructing them that they return a verdict of guilty or not guilty of that crime. The defense excepted to the court\u27s refusal to submit the other counts charged in the indictment. The defendant was found guilty of attempted robbery, and the verdict was affirmed by the appellate division. On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, held, affirmed, three judges dissenting. The court is required only to instruct on a lesser or included crime when there is some basis in the evidence for finding the accused innocent of the larger crime and guilty of the lesser one. People v. Mussenden, 308 N. Y. 558, 127 N.E. (2d) 551 (1955)

Criminal Law - Trial - Duty of Judge to Instruct on Lesser and Included Crimes

Appellant was one of four defendants who were charged in three separate counts of an indictment with the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree with intent to commit robbery and grand larceny. After all the evidence had been entered, the trial judge submitted only the count of attempted robbery to the jury, instructing them that they return a verdict of guilty or not guilty of that crime. The defense excepted to the court\u27s refusal to submit the other counts charged in the indictment. The defendant was found guilty of attempted robbery, and the verdict was affirmed by the appellate division. On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, held, affirmed, three judges dissenting. The court is required only to instruct on a lesser or included crime when there is some basis in the evidence for finding the accused innocent of the larger crime and guilty of the lesser one. People v. Mussenden, 308 N. Y. 558, 127 N.E. (2d) 551 (1955)

Future Interests - Possibilities of Reverter - Constitutionality of Retroactive Limitation

The township school trustees brought actions under the Reverter Act to have the possibilities of reverter contained in the deeds to two currently unused school tracts declared invalid. In each case the trial court held that the possibility of reverter was alienable and that the Reverter Act was unconstitutional, being an ex post facto law and in violation of the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. On appeal, held, reversed. Since possibilities of reverter in Illinois are merely expectancies subject to change, modification, or abolition by legislative action, the act does not result in an unconstitutional taking of property. Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1 v. Batdorf, 6 Ill. (2d) 486, 130 N.E. (2d) 11 I (1955)