McGorray v. Sutter

Citations

• 80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 400

Syllabus

<p>Habeas corpus resorted to by witness — Committed for contempt in-refusing to answer — Is collateral attack — Burden rests on plaintiff — Assumption of witness that answer would incriminate— Not conclusive, when — Law of evidence.</p> <p>1. A resort to a suit in habeas corpus by a witness who has been committed to jail by order of the court'of common pleas for refusing to testify is a collateral attack upon the order of commitment, and the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that it is void.</p> <p>2. When a witness refuses to answer a question propounded to him, basing his refusal upon the alleged reason that his answer . would incriminate him, his answer is not conclusive with respect to the incriminating character of the evidence sought to be elicited, and he may be required to answer, if by any inquiry which does not invade his immunity it is made to appear to the trial judge that his answer would not have the tendency claimed by him.</p>