The Court reversed ¹⁷ a conviction for refusal to answer
questions put by a Virginia committee about the NAACP
because the relevance of the questions had not been
shown.

But it upheld ¹⁸ the conviction of Uphaus for having
refused to give the names of persons attending a certain
camp at a New Hampshire inquiry into Communist ac-
tivities. Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas
and Brennan dissented.

The Court unanimously reversed ²⁰ Ohio convictions
of three persons because the witnesses before the Ohio
Un-American Activities Commission had been led to be-
lieve that they could rely on their privilege against self-
incrimination, only to find in the state court that this
was not available by reason of an immunity statute. The
conviction of a fourth witness was upheld by an evenly
divided court ( Justice Stewart not participating) because
he refused to give his address and had been directed to an-
swer by the Commission because it did not consider this to
be a question with respect to which the plea of self-
incrimination was proper.

There are various ways in which a person may raise
a claim that rights under the federal Constitution have
been infringed by a state. The simplest situation is where
such claim is asserted in a criminal prosecution pending in
the state courts. But a person may seek to anticipate
possible prosecution by seeking a declaration that a partic-
ular law is unconstitutional, or he may sue for damages
after he has been wronged. Such suits can be brought
either in a state or a federal court. But a federal court
will not ordinarily enjoin criminal prosecutions under a
state law or municipal ordinance. ⁵

-142-