The New York herald., 1874-11-22
CORONER CROKER'S BAIL.
Application for the Production of the
Minutes Of Evidence Taken Be-
fore the Grand Jury.
ARGUMENT ON MOTION TO BAIL
Opinion by the Court
Reserved.

1t was rather an unexpected move In the tactics
OF counsel that brought the application for the
bailing Of Coroner Croker before Judge Barrett IN
the Court OF oyer and Termner yesterday. The
sudden adjournment OF the Court on the previous
day, when 1t was intended that the application
should have been made and necessary argument
had thereon excited considerable comment IN
political and legal circles. IL was surprise,
therefore, when 1t was understood ABOUT the
City Hall and the Court bullong that Judge
Barrett would open the Court AZ eleven and hear
motion OF counsel on the question OF bail. At the
opening the attendance was very slim. but it being
bruited abroad that Mr.. Croker had been brought
to the Court from the Tombsln very brief time
the Court room was crowded.
Judge Barrett promptly came on the bench.
District Attorney Phelps and Mr.. Croker's counsel
were also in attendance, and as soon as an order
was given by the Bench that Mr.. Croker should be
brought into Court the proceedings commenced
A PRELIMINARY MOTION.
M. John r. Fellows addressing the Court, said -
Your Honor, in the matter Of the application to
admit Coroner Croker to bail we desire TO submit
preliminary motion for the production OF the
minutes OF the Grand Jury and list OF the wit
nesses before them at the time Of finding the in
dlctment We are not aware OF what the min
utes disclose; they may be unimportant, and the
list OF witnesses may be enough for our purpose.
but 1t Is important that we should have that list,
as certain omissions Of testimony before the Grand
Jury-the method in which the indictment was
found. and Irregularities attending it, will form
part Of our argument upon the motion.
District AttOrney-It is not necessary or proper
that the minutes should be made public for any
purpose. suppose II, for any purpose OF his own
information, the Court desires IT, they VIII be at
his service.
Mr.. Fellows went on to cite decision Of Judge
Pratt IN The People vs. Lowden, in which list Of
witnesses against the accused before the Grand
Jury was ordered; and The People vs. Hyer, in
which the principle was laid down that the ac-
cused Is entitled to such list where there was no
preliminary examination and when motion to bail
Is made.
District Attorney Phelps said the Court was un-
doubtedly entitled to the minutes, and would con-
slider nothing else after the indictment. II that Is
sufficient to warrant the indictment OF course the
Court proceeds on that assumption. 1t Is only
where the Court finds the testimony sufficient to
warrant the Indictment in serious case like this
that the Court Will admit to bail.
AS to the minutes Mr.. Phelps said:-I have not
examined the minutes. The District Attorneys of
tins Court do not keep minutes OF the testimony
Mr.. FellOws-I suppose the minutes taken
merely give the names OF the witnesses and the
TACT that tney appeared and what disposition was
Judge Barrett-That seems contrary to the
statute. which says that the Grand Jury may ap.
point clerk and keep record OF the minutes OF
evidence before them.
Mr.. Phelps-The practice has been as l
suggest, whether proper or not ! will not
now discuss. 1t seems now impossible to COM
ply with the request, or 10 ask the Grand Jury
what took place before them, How these pro-
ceedngs can be disclosed by the list OF witnesses
l cannot see. The object OF the application
seems to be to make some comparison between
those proceedings and those before the Coroner.
Iquestion whether the proceedings before the
earlh ha t.nrA NV thA Hnnrt ut II
l am correctly advised, what purport to be the
deposltions taken before the Coroner were not re-
duced to writing or subscribed until the jury were
discharged and the Coroner's jurisdiction over
them at an end.
Grand Jury was wholly insufficient in law, and did
not
JUSTIFY THE GRAND JURY IN FINDING AN INDIcT-
MENT,
ana that on such evidence the Court would be
compelled to direct verdict OF acquitta. and we
want the list Of witnesses to make that lact appa-
rent. The Grand jury have no provision for
stenographer, and lind 1t impossible to take down
the evidence so that our application Is virtually
for q list OF witnesses.
Mr.. Cllnton-We want the minutes, such as they
are. l entirely agree with Your Honor that 1t is
the duty OF the Grand Jury to keep minutes Of
evidence.
the prisoner is entitled TO copy OF the minutes.
The Court may. of course, OF It's own motion, IN
spect the records o the Grand Jury. and IN the
exercise OF its discretion on proper cause shown.
furnish copy TO the prisoner. But whether 1t Is
matter OF absolute right IN ali cases, on de-
prefer 10 look into before deciding. But con-
cede you have right to u copy on good cause
shown.
ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION TO ADMIT TO BAIL.
After some iurther discussion 1t was decided to
! go on with the motion, the Court to decide on
Mr.. Clinton then produced the minutes OF evi-
dence before the Coroner and Mr.. Phelps
objected TO them rs before, and alter long
discussion 1t was decided and admitted that the
minutes as written out by the stenographer were
correct and proper ground for the notion but the
Court had no doubt 1t was the duty oil the Coroner
to have the minutes reduced to writing and read
to the witnesses before the proceedings closed
and that the practice OF having a stenographer
was not contemplated by the statute.
Mr. Clinton then went ON TO cite authorities.
Mr. Phelps SAID to save time he would concede
the inherent right OF the Court to admit to bail
when the indictment is Tor murder.
Mr.. Clinton-As there are thousands OF author-
ties IN favor Of IL and not one against It, We thank
the gentleman for his generosity.
Mr.. Phelps-NOt generosity, Dut humanity, to
save the Court from long argument in favor OF a
proposition nobody ever denied.
Mr.. Clinton argued that the presumption was
the prisoner would stand his trial. He demands
| an early One Twenty-seven dsintercsted wit
nesses before the Coroner testified the prisoner
had no weapon; six. including the OBrlens, said
he had. On these lacts he was entitled To bail. In
the course OF his argument counsel quoted the
following extract from an opinion by Judge
Pratt in the case OF The People vs. Naughton:-
''This body" tine Grand jury was formerly con.
sidcred to be one OF the buwarks OF liberty II so,
It's DAY has surely passed; for 1t has come to be
regarded as a mere adjunct to puDlic prosecut-
Ors, cumbersome machine Tor the grinding
out of questionable indictments, vast political
power, and IN bad or unscrupulous hands, an en-
gne OF oppression, wrong or outrage, witness
the spectacle, neither impossible nor lnfrequent,
OF Grand Jury in secret session in one room and
petit jury impanelled IN another, public prose-
cutor n0verlng over the two, anu perhaps lnnu-
encing both; citizens indicted by the one and
brought to trial on short notce before the other
all this with or without the incident OF but SIM
gle appeal to the Judge who tries them. Here Is q
spectaclel With such action angels might per-
haps be trusted, but with mortais alone appear
ing upon the scene lraught with danger 10 our
liberties and subversive OF our dearest rightsp'
District Attorney Phelps, In reply, called the At
tention Of the Court to the well settled rules IN
such cases and cited the People vs.. MCGOWAN,
Wendell, 565, and the People vs.. Collins, New York
Courts lie dwelt on the tact tnat even on coun-
sells own showing at least SIX witnesses testified
the prisoner 1red the shot heard the dying dec
aration OF the deceased to that effect. 1t not
Court XeiQn Ine Testimony OF the Gnr0-