United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D
May 31, 1974
FRANK A. ANGLIN, JR., PETITIONER,
STEVEN JOHNSTON, PAROLE EXECUTIVE, UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: McGARR, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this habeas action, the petitioner, Frank Anglin, Jr., seeks
his return to Sandstone Penitentiary and credit for the time
served in Cook County Jail. On February 23, 1972, this Court
sentenced the petitioner herein to three years imprisonment which
he began serving at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Sandstone, Minnesota on March 27, 1973. In May of 1973, the
petitioner was returned to the Northern District of Illinois
pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. After
receiving a grant of immunity, the petitioner was brought before
the Grand Jury where he refused to answer the questions put to
him by the Assistant United States Attorney. As a consequence, on
June 20, 1973 the petitioner was held to be in contempt of the
Grand Jury by Chief Judge Robson and, pursuant to that decision,
has been held in the Cook County Jail ever since. Recent
correspondence with the Board of Parole has brought the
petitioner to the realization that the time spent in prison
pursuant to his contempt citation effectively suspends the
running of his Federal criminal sentence. To avoid this result,
the petitioner requests an order from this Court returning him to
Sandstone and crediting his criminal sentence with the time spent
under the civil contempt order.
To afford the petitioner the relief he requests would be to
render Chief Judge Robson's contempt citation meaningless and
inoperative. The "recalcitrant witness" statute, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a)
has been upheld under constitutional attack, Stewart v.
United States (9th Cir. 1971), 440 F.2d 954, affirmed 92
S.Ct. 1653, 406 U.S. 441, 32 L.Ed.2d 212, rehearing denied 92
S.Ct. 2478, 408 U.S. 931, 33 L.Ed.2d 345, and clearly authorizes
the Court to confine a recalcitrant witness as an incentive to
compel the testimony sought. The granting of the petitioner's
requests herein would remove the incentive in contravention of
congressional intent. The petitioner would suffer no detriment
for his refusal to testify and 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) would have no
meaning. Thus to effectuate the clear intent of this law, the
petitioner's request must be denied.
For the aforementioned reasons, the petitioner's habeas request
is hereby denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.