Facts
- Blau was summoned to testify before a federal grand jury in Denver investigating Communist Party activities in Colorado.
- He refused to answer questions about the Communist Party’s activities and records, invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- He also refused to disclose his wife’s whereabouts, asserting the marital communications privilege because he learned her location from a confidential spousal communication.
- The district court rejected both privilege claims and sentenced Blau to six months’ imprisonment for contempt.
- The court of appeals affirmed the contempt judgment.
Issues
- Whether Blau’s refusal to answer grand jury questions about Communist Party activities and records was protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Whether Blau could refuse to disclose his wife’s whereabouts under the marital communications privilege where the information was obtained through a spousal communication.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held it was error to deny Blau’s Fifth Amendment claim of privilege against self-incrimination regarding questions about Communist Party activities and records.
- The Court held Blau was entitled to invoke the marital communications privilege to refuse to disclose his wife’s whereabouts because marital communications are presumptively confidential and the Government did not rebut that presumption.
- Justice Clark did not participate.
Legal Principles
- A grand jury witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when compelled answers may reasonably tend to incriminate the witness.
- Confidential communications between spouses are privileged.
- Marital communications are presumptively confidential; the Government bears the burden to overcome that presumption to compel disclosure.
- When a witness’s knowledge (including a spouse’s whereabouts) is obtained through a spousal communication, the privilege applies absent proof the communication was not confidential.
Conclusion
The Court set aside a contempt sentence imposed for refusing to answer potentially incriminating grand jury questions and for refusing to reveal a spouse’s location learned through a presumptively confidential marital communication, where the Government did not rebut confidentiality.