## Facts

- A House select committee, created to investigate the disposition of surplus property, subpoenaed Benjamin F. Fields to testify and produce records concerning a specific surplus-property transaction.
- Fields appeared, was sworn, and was questioned about a deal in which bronze wire screen bought from the War Assets Administration was resold at an unusual profit.
- Fields produced a file of papers relating to the transaction; the file included a typed memorandum listing gross profit and brokerage allocations, including entries to “Glenn A. Dies” and “John Doe.”
- The committee sought additional records to identify the persons referenced and to explain the profit and brokerage distributions reflected in the memorandum.
- Fields was indicted under 2 U.S.C. § 192 on two counts for willfully failing to produce demanded papers; a jury acquitted on one count and convicted on the other.
- At trial, the government introduced the papers at issue as evidence bearing on Fields’s possession or control and the relevance of the documents to the committee’s inquiry.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that Fields’s nonproduction of demanded documents was a “willful” default under 2 U.S.C. § 192.
2. Whether the documents were sufficiently shown to be within Fields’s possession or control and within the scope of the committee’s lawful demand.
3. Whether alleged errors in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions required reversal.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence sufficient for the jury to find that the demanded documents were pertinent to the committee’s inquiry and within Fields’s possession or control when demanded.
- The court held the jury could infer willfulness from the circumstances, including Fields’s prior possession, the documents’ apparent relevance, and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for nonproduction.
- The court rejected claims that the committee’s demand was legally inadequate for lack of technical specificity.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Under 2 U.S.C. § 192, criminal liability for failure to produce congressional records requires proof of a willful default, which may be established by circumstantial evidence.
- A committee demand is adequate if it identifies the records by reference to a defined transaction or subject so that the witness understands what is required; exact itemization of each document is not required.
- Possession or control may be inferred where evidence shows the witness had the documents in connection with the inquiry and the documents’ production at trial supports an inference of prior custody or control at the time of the demand.
- Pertinence is satisfied when the demanded papers bear a reasonable relation to the committee’s authorized inquiry.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a contempt-of-Congress conviction where a subpoenaed witness, questioned about a specific surplus-property resale, failed to produce transaction records sought by a House committee; the evidence supported findings of pertinence, possession or control, and intentional nonproduction, and the committee’s demand and the trial proceedings were legally sufficient.


Fields v. United States, 164 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1947)