In Re Groban
1 L. Ed. 2d 376, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1250, 352 U.S. 330 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant a witness a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel during a purely investigatory, non-adjudicatory proceeding conducted by a state fire marshal.
Facts:
- A fire occurred on the premises of a corporation owned and operated by the appellants.
- The Ohio State Fire Marshal initiated an investigation into the cause of the fire.
- The Fire Marshal subpoenaed the appellants to appear and testify as witnesses.
- Appellants appeared for the hearing accompanied by their legal counsel.
- Relying on an Ohio statute allowing for private investigations, the Fire Marshal refused to permit the appellants' counsel to be present during their testimony.
- Appellants refused to be sworn in or to testify without their counsel present.
Procedural Posture:
- The Fire Marshal summarily held appellants in contempt for their refusal to testify and committed them to the county jail until they complied.
- Appellants filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas.
- The Court of Common Pleas denied the writ.
- Appellants appealed the denial to the Ohio Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision.
- Appellants then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which also affirmed the denial of the writ.
- The appellants appealed the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provide a witness with a right to the assistance of counsel during testimony at a private state fire investigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
No, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a witness with the right to counsel in a purely investigatory proceeding. A state fire marshal's investigation is not a criminal trial or an adjudicative administrative proceeding; it is a fact-finding inquiry analogous to a grand jury proceeding, where witnesses also have no constitutional right to counsel. A witness's protection in such a setting is not the right to counsel, but the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The state's interest in effective fire prevention through private investigations outweighs the potential burdens of allowing counsel, which could encumber the process.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, this statute does not violate the Due Process Clause. The law is a general administrative tool for the expert ascertainment of fire causes, not a secret inquisition aimed at suspects. The potential danger of self-incrimination is a separate issue, and the privilege against it provides sufficient protection. To invalidate the statute based on a fear of potential abuse of power is not a valid constitutional basis for striking down state legislation. The Due Process Clause recognizes differences in degree, and this non-prosecutorial administrative inquiry is vitally different from a criminal interrogation by a prosecutor.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, it violates the Due Process Clause for a state to compel a person to appear alone and give testimony in secret against his will before a law-enforcement officer. The Fire Marshal's investigation is not merely administrative; it is an integral part of the prosecution process for arson, and the interrogating officers have the power to arrest. A secret interrogation without counsel is fraught with dangers, including coercion, trickery, and the inability of the witness to effectively challenge the officer's version of events later. The right to counsel at trial is a hollow protection if the conviction is practically assured by a pre-trial, secret examination where the witness was unrepresented.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial distinction between investigatory and adjudicatory proceedings regarding the right to counsel under the Due Process Clause. It holds that the full panoply of procedural rights available in a criminal trial does not extend to witnesses in preliminary, fact-finding investigations. The ruling reinforces the power of administrative agencies to conduct private inquiries, likening them to grand juries and prioritizing the state's regulatory interests over an individual witness's desire for counsel. This precedent has been used to limit the right to counsel in various administrative and investigatory contexts, shaping the landscape of procedural due process outside of formal criminal prosecutions.
