The herald., 1894-11-18
THE HARRIS-PLATI CASE.
SENATOR s. NJ. WHITE DEMANDS
A SEPARATE TRIAL.
W. A. Cheney, Piatts Counsel. Oppose
the Application as Contrary to
Law and DetrIm on tai to
tho Cause Of Justice.

The motion OF Emil Harris, defendant
in the Harris-Platt conspiracy case, for
separate trial, was heard by Judge
Roee in the United States district court
yesterday.
The motion was for a separate trial
and permission to sever from his CO.
defendant upon the grounds that the
ends Of justice would be best served by
such course OF action and that the
rights of the defendant, Harris, would
be- jeopardized by being tried with the
defendant Plstt.
Senator S. NJ. White appeared for the
defendant Harris, while W. A. Cheney
represented the defendant @. d. Platr.
After announcing to the court that
Henry L. Gage, his associate in the
case, could not be present, Senator
White presented the molten, which
was based upon the following affidavit: /:
Emil Harris, being duly sworn, de
poses and says: That justice will be
promoted by granting him a separate
trial from the defendant Platt, and in
support thereof the defendant AYERS
that his defense is different from and
entirely antagonis;ic to that of the de-
fendant Platt; that the defense OF this
defendant will be that there never was
a conspiracy such ss is alleged in the
indictment, and that this defendant
never consented 10 any act in further
ance or pursuance of any con-
spiracy. nor had he any knowledge
thereof; nor did he consent thereto.
nor was be in any way interested
in the commission of the overt act set
forth in said indictment; that q large
mass of testimony will be introduced
on the trial of this case. which is ad
missible against the defendant Platt,
but which would not he admissible
against this defendant on a separate
trial. and that the effect OF such tes;i.
mony will be to prejudice the case OF
this defendant before the jury; that
portion of such testimony ls as to ac,s
or statements OF the defendant Platt,
and while this defendant AYERS that he
has no knowledge of said acts or state
mente, and was not in any wise concerned
therein, still he AYERS that irree pective
of any instructions of the court, the nat
ural effect OF such testimony will tend
to injure his case and prejudice him in
the mind of the jury this defendant fur
ther AYERS that he has iully and fairly
stated the facts constituting hie defense
to his attorneys of record herein, and
after such statements he is advised by
such attorneys that he has a good de-
tense on the merits herein, and that it
would tend to lnjure him greatly and
prejudice his case to be tried in connec.
tion with the defendant Piatt, and there.
fore he respectfully requests sever
aDce. EMIL HARRIS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 14th day OF Novem oer, 1894
WILLIAM CARDwELL,
Notary public in and for the county OF
Los Angelee.
The question was argued by Senator
White on the lines laid down on the
affidavit, and he stated that the only
objection to the motion, that he could
see, was that separate trials would tend
20 increase the expense, but he, never
theess, ventured the opinion that 30
long ee the interests Of justice were SUBJ
served, that fact ought TO cut no figure
in the matter.
United States Attorney Denis ex-
pressed himself to the effect that it was
O matter of indifference to the govern
ment whether the defendants were tried
together or singly: as they were charged
under the indictment jointly, with con.
spiracy, however, it necessarily followed
that both must be convicted or acquit-
ted, and ne therefore had serious doubto
whether or not, il separate trials we're
granted, the conviction .of defendants
could be supported by law.
On behalf of the defendant, Plat, Mr..
Cheney eubmitted that with due respect
to Senator White. his statement with
reference to the inadmissibility OF any
of the declarations OF Platt as against
Harris, was scarcely good law. Both
defendants being jointly charged with
the one cf1ense of conspiring together. a
separate trial would be an absurdity,
for the acquittal of the one first tried
would be practical acquittal of both,
and in the event OF the conviction of
one, the other would be put upon his
| defense.
To this Senator White replied that his
argument was based upon good law, and
cited authority for his statement that
the confession of one defendant, where
two were jointly charged. was inadmis-
sible as to the other, in that 1t was
prejudicial to the absentee.
Mr.. Cheney insisted upon his conten-
ton that since one defendant could not
be convicted without the other, it would
be impossible. under the indictment, to
admit evidence as to one alone.
In support OF the motion the court
was briefly addressed by W. I. Williams,
and at the close of his argument the
matter was submitted, and the court
stated that the matter would be passed
upon on Monday morning.