Blackmer v.

United States
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 421 (1932)

Facts
Harry M. Blackmer (defendant) is a United States citizen but a
resident of Paris, France. The United States government (plaintiff)
issued two subpoenas requesting Blackmer appear as a witness on its
behalf at a criminal trial. Blackmer failed to appear, and two separate
contempt actions were instituted against him in the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia. The contempt actions were based on a
United States statute which provides that “whenever the attendance at
the trial of a criminal action of a witness abroad, who is a citizen of
the United States or domiciled therein, is desired by the Attorney
General, or any assistant or district attorney acting under him, the
judge of the court in which the action is pending may order a
subpoena to issue, to be addressed to a consul of the United States and
to be served by him personally upon the witness with a tender of
traveling expenses.” Additionally, upon issuance of the subpoena and
failure of the witness to appear, the court may issue an order requiring
the witness to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt. Once the order is issued, the court may seize the property of
the witness to be held by the United States to satisfy any judgment
which might be rendered against the witness in the proceeding.
Service is affected through both personal service on the witness and
through publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
district where the court is sitting. If, after a hearing, the charge against
the witness is sustained, the court may find the witness guilty of
contempt and impose upon him a fine to be satisfied by the seized
property. Blackmer was found guilty of contempt on both counts, and
a fine of $30,000 was imposed in both cases. The fine was to be
satisfied out of Blackmer’s property which had been seized by the
court. On appeal, Blackmer objected to the statute supporting his
contempt convictions on the ground that it violated the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Blackmer stated five
arguments in support of this contention. Most notably, he argued that
the statute did not comply with due process requirements under the
United States Constitution. The court of appeals affirmed the
contempt decrees, and the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari.