Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 20, 1950, the petitioner was indicted under 2 U. S. C. § 192 for refusing to answer thirty-two questions put to him by a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. During the trial in the District Court for the District of Columbia, the Government abandoned twenty-four of these counts. The District Judge, sitting without a jury, found Bart guilty of the remaining eight charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the judgment upon three of the counts and, one judge dissenting, affirmed as to the others. From that decision, we granted certiorari and set the case down for argument along with the two companion cases. Quinn v. United States, ante, p. 155, and Emspak v. United States, ante, p. 190.
In response to a subpoena, petitioner appeared before the subcommittee on June 21, 1950. He was then general manager both of Freedom of the Press Co., Inc., which publishes the Daily Worker, and of the Daily Worker itself. During the course of the interrogation, members of the committee and the committee counsel posed various questions dealing with Bart’s background, his activities, and alleged associates. Among these were the five questions which, because of petitioner’s refusal to answer, led to the convictions now under scrutiny. The particular inquiries involve petitioner’s name when he came to this country as a child, his name before it was changed years ago to Philip Bart pursuant to a New York court order, his father’s name, and the identity of officials of the Ohio section of the Communist Party in 1936. To the questions concerning name or family background, he raised objections of pertinency; to the other, he unequivocally pleaded the privilege against self-incrimination.
In finding petitioner guilty, the trial court rejected these defenses as without merit. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner abandoned his defense as to lack of pertinency. The majority thought that this abandonment in effect erased petitioner’s objections from the committee record and that they were thus faced with “naked refusals to answer” which did not require affirmative rulings from the committee. We cannot agree. The objections were in fact made before the committee and the witness was entitled to a clear-cut ruling at that time, even though the claims were later abandoned or found to be invalid. Quinn v. United States, supra. Without such a ruling, evidence of the requisite criminal intent to violate § 192 is lacking. An abandonment made two and one-half years after the objections were raised cannot serve retroactively to eliminate the need for a ruling. If the requirement of criminal intent is not satisfied at the time of the hearing, it cannot be satisfied nunc pro tunc by a later abandonment of petitioner’s objection. Therefore, the issue before us is, upon the record as it stood at the completion of the hearing, whether petitioner was apprised of the committee’s disposition of his objections.
At no time did the committee directly overrule petitioner’s claims of self-incrimination or lack of pertinency. Nor was petitioner indirectly informed of the committee’s position through a specific direction to answer. At one juncture, Congressman Case made the suggestion to the chairman that the witness “be advised of the possibilities of contempt” for failure to respond, but the suggestion was rejected. The chairman stated:
“No. He has counsel. Counsel knows that is the law. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.”
A few moments later, when committee counsel inquired as to certain details of petitioner’s marriage, the following colloquy took place:
“Mr. Unger [Counsel for petitioner]. Mr. Chairman, what concern is it of anybody here-
“Mr. Walter. We permit you to appear with your client for the purpose of advising your client. You apparently are old enough to have had some experience in court.
“Mr. Unger. Yes, indeed.
“Mr. Walter. Of course, you know there are many preliminary questions asked witnesses, leading up to some point. As they are propounded you will readily learn what the purpose is. Just advise your client and don’t argue with the committee, because we don’t rule on objections.”
The questioning proceeded on this basis.
Because of the consistent failure to advise the witness of the committee’s position as to his objections, petitioner was left to speculate about the risk of possible prosecution for contempt; he was not given a clear choice between standing on his objection and compliance with a committee ruling. Because of this defect in laying the necessary foundation for a prosecution under § 192, petitioner’s conviction cannot stand under the criteria set forth more fully in Quinn v. United States, supra.
Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to consider petitioner’s other contentions. The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
Reversed.
United States v. Bart, unreported, Criminal No. 1746-50 (D. D. C.). The opinions of the District Court, denying petitioner’s motions to dismiss the indictment, appear sub nom. United States v. Emspak, 95 F. Supp. 1010, 1012.
91 U. S. App. D. C. 370, 203 F. 2d 45.
347 U. S. 1011.
Hearings before House Committee on Un-American Activities Regarding Communist Infiltration in Labor Unions, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., Part III, 2636.
As phrased in the indictment, these questions were as follows:
“Count Three
“What was the name of the defendant when he came to the United States. .p.
.p. Count Four
“What was the defendant’s father’s name.
“Count Five
“Under what name did the defendant’s father become a citizen of the United States. _
_ Count Six
“What name did the defendant change his name from.
“Count Eight
“Who were the other officials of the Ohio section of the Communist Party during the period when the defendant was organizer there [sometime in 1936].” Transcript of Record, p. 109, Bart v. United States, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 370, 203 F. 2d 45.
91 U. S. App. D. C., at 372, 203 F. 2d, at 47.
Cf. United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 48: “In any event, Rumely’s duty to answer must be judged as of the time of his refusal.”
Hearings, supra, note 4, at p. 2636.
Ibid.
Id., at 2637 (italics added).
In one instance, committee counsel observed that in his opinion the question asked was not incriminating, but this was disputed by counsel for petitioner and not ruled upon by the chair. When petitioner repeated the objection, stating that he felt the question to be of an incriminating nature and that he therefore refused to answer, the question was immediately abandoned. See id., at 2638-2639.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.