Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-09-15
THE STAR ROUTE VERDICT.
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT TODAY.
THE BRIBERY CHARGES DISCUSSED
RERDELL AND MINER GRANTED 4
NEW TRIAL.

RERDELL AND MINER GRANTED A
|. NEW TRIAL.
The Criminal Court met this morning to con
slider the motions for q new trial in the cases of
Rerdell and Miner, the two star route defendants
convicted by the jury. Messrs. Henkle, Totten,
Wilson, and Carpenter, OF counsel for the defense
and Messrs. Ker and Merrick, OF the prosecution,
were present Rerdell and Miner were brought to
court and sat with their counsel Mr.. Brady wa
also present.
The court having asked Mr. Henkle IL he was
ready with the affidavit he proposed to file, Mr.
Henkle handed a number of papers to the clerk.
JUROR HOLMEADS AFFIDAVIT
Mr.. Henkle said he had sent for one of the ju-
rors, Mr.. Holmead, and asked him for an affidavit
Mr.. Holmead had said that he had made an af1i
davit and given it to Mr. Moore the assistant Dis
trict Attorney, who told Mr.. HOmead that he
could not have copy OF IT, as they did not want the
counsel for the defendants to have them There
upon Mr.. Henkle had got Mr.. Holmead to sign
letter addressed to the court. stating the circum-
stances This letter was handed to Judge Wylie.
MR.. MERRICK ON THE VERDICT.
Mr.. Merrick said that he had not had opportu-
nifty to confer with the Attorney General or with
Mr.. Ker AS counsel for the United States he felt
1t his duty not to oppose this motion for a new
trial. The government OF the United States itself
was not entirely satisfied with this verdict. The
was verdict that preSupposed conspiracy to de-
fraud the United States, and conclusive and salts
factory proof OF an overt act. That having been
found by jury necessarily LETT for them the sole
inquiry as to who was In the conspiracy. 1t was
apparent to all men that deeply guilty as Rerdell
and Miner were, the guilt they did was the scheme
and device Of others Now the government OF the
United States could not object with dignity to this
motion, which sought to bring to trial again ser
wants and masters. The government of the United
States sought no victim. The government counsel
therefore left these motions to the discretion of
mined to continue the prosecution Of criminals,
and hoping that justice would prevail.
MIR. HENKLE's NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF THE
JURY"
At the request OF. Judge Wyhe, Mr.. Henkle read
his motion for new trial One OF the grounds
stated was "misbehavior OF the jury"
Judge Wylie asked what was the evidence Of
m1sbehavior Of the jury.
Mr. Henkle stated he had taken no evidence as
to this point though he thought the affldavfts Of
jurors showed that. Mr.. Henkle remarked that
one OF the jurors said that If they had been polled
they would have said that that was not their
verdict.
MR.. HENKLE's CONCESSION.
Mr.: Merrick said nine Of them who voted guilty
straight through. were consistent, and Mr.. Henkle
said he conceded that.
DICKsoN's AFFIDAVIT
Mr.. Henkle here read the affidavit OF Mr.. Dickson
as to the alleged approach OF Henry G. Bowen
with an offer OF s25 900 to influence his Dicksons)
action as Il juryman.
FOREMAN DICKSON AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr.. Merrick said he had prepared no affidavits,
but he believed Mr.. Dickson had stated that he be-
lieved the Attorney General had no knowledge of
this action Of Bowens.
Mr. Carpenter said he was aware that Mr.. Dick
son nad maze SUCH statement
JUROR MCLAIN A MARYLAND VOTER
Mr. Henkle said the only ether affidavit he had
was one setting forth tina, ,:ror McLain was a
resident of Prince Georges county, Md, and voted
there at the last election
JUDGE wYLrE SAID
that before the jury retired Mr.. Ingersol inquired
OF the court whether the members OF the jury
were at liberty to discuss the offers 81 bribery said
to have been made. The court was of opinion
that such discussion would be highly improper.
1t might affect the verdict which should rest upon
the evidence alone. A discussion of that kind
Woull have been calculated to misead the minds
or the jury, ana the jury was Informed by the
court that such discussion should not be allowed.
whether the jury had transgreSsed this rule or
not the court was not informed.
MR.. HOLMEAD'S AFFIDAVIT.
Mr.. Henlle said that he was in hopes that the
court would send to the district attorneys Office
for the affidavit or Mr.. Ho,nead, which was of the
same nature describing an app roach made to him
by an officer OF the Department OF Justice.
Mr. Merrick said that Mr.. II olmead'S affidavit
did not represent that any offer had been made.
MR. HENKLE's REASONS FOR WANTING THE YER
DICT SET ASIDE.
Mr. Henkle said he based his motion to set aside
the verdict entirely on Mr. Dickson's affidavit, and
had authorities to show that even If an approach
was made In the name OF party, though it was
unauthorized, 1t was sufficient to justify setting
aside the verdict.
FOREMAN DICKSON DIsR EGARDING THE INSTR &C
TIoNS OF THE COURT.
Mr. Merrick said that as to setting aside a
verdict on that ground, he would resist the motion
and ask leave to procure and file af1idavits show
I'M a 1oJ{n fl,ot oFro,
came from the Attorney General; that he had said
1t did not influence his verdict and furt her. that
Mr.. Dickson had read his statement in the jury
room after being instruct ed not to do SO by the
court
After Mr.. Henkle had read extracts from one or
two books, Juror DOniphan having come Into
court, Mr.. Merrick said that one or two Of the
Jurors were In court, and the court had power to
examine anime them them as to alleged misbehavIor
Judge Wyne, however, made no reply.
WHAT JUDGE wYLIE WANTED TO KNOW.
Judge Wylie wanted to know If the counsel
could cite case Of offers or proposals or brbes
coming from party not connected with the
case.
THE COURTROOM FULh OF sPoTrERs
Mr.. Henkle said he could not at that time. He
had never seen case like this. The courtroom
had been full of ''spotters" and low men, who had
shadOWed Jurors, counsel and witnesses in the In
teresto OF the government
rick.
81 Will furnish it to you, II you want it," said
MI denkie, "Wnen Che other question comes to be
it now" ~ 49, N
ut may be- said Mr. Merrick, ''that there was
no DrlDe In DlckSon's case, and that 1t was a
PUT UP JOB BY THE DEFENDANTS"
''You will have hard time," said Mr.. Carpen-
ter, ato prove that"
Mr.. Totten argued that the verdict was incon-
sistent and should be set aside.
Assistant District Attorney Moore having ap.
peared, read the affidavit OF Juror Holmead.
Juror HOlmead,s Affidavit.
The afidavt set forth, with considerable detail,
that during the second week Of the trial Frank II.
Fall came to see him at his no use at Mount Pleas
ant; stated that the Attorney General had sent
him; that he (Holmead) was the only juror not
under suspicion; that the Attorney General had
poSltlVe proof that Juror had sold out; that
Olcott, DICKSON and Martin were suspected; af-
nant sa1d that ne was surprised at such state
ment, and defended the jurors named; Fall said
that Dorsey and Brady were spending barrels OF
money to corrupt the jury, and It would be shame
70 nave the government sold out; afiiant said that
II ne had any knowledge OF facts showing corrup-
tl0n he would consider it his duty to report them
70 the Attorney General; that on the following
sunday evening Fall called again, and af1ant told
hlm 10 tell the Attorney General that he would
40 al he could to prevent or detect corruption
that II he Nhe af1ant) believed the defendants
guilty. ne would SO vote. and IL he believed them