The record-union., 1897-06-27
THE GRAND JURY'S MISTAKE.
One Indictment and Three Accusations
Set Aside.
The Accused Persons Were Induced
to Give Testimony Against
Themselves.

indictment against j. A. Sheehan IOr
libel, and the accusations against city
Trustee Leonard and Supervisors
brennan and Jenkins. The cases were
argued several days ago on motion Tor
dismissal and taken under Amusement
The defendants moved for the dis
missals on the ground that they mad
been called before the Grand Jury and
questioned in regard to the matters on
which the Indictment and accusations
We're found, and the evidence was con-
elusive on that point, the important
fact in that connection being that they
were not informed of their legal rights
as witnesses against themselves.
Judge Hart concludes his decision
with some wholesome advice to
Grand Juries of the future. The de-
cision is as follows:
The People VS.. John A. Sheehan and
others: The defendant, Sheehan, was
indicted by a Grand Jury of Sacra-
mento County for the crime of GRIMM
al libel, the specific allegations of the
indictment being that said defendant,
who is, and was. at the times men
toned in the indictment, the editor and
one of the proprietors of the Sunday
News" a newspaper published once
week in the city of Sacramento, print
ed and published of and concerning one
j. NJ. Morrison, member of the Board
of Supervisors of said Sacramento
County, a certain defamatory article,
relating to said Morrison's official con-
duct in reference to certain bridge con-
tracts let by the board of which he
said Morrison, was a member. The in
dictment sets out said article in full.
Against the other defendants. brennan,
Jenkins and Leonard, the same Grand
Jury found accusations of alleged mis-
conduct in office. The proceeding be-
fore the court in these cases is a mo-
ton to set aside or dismiss the said
indictments and accusations.
The question to be determined in
these cases is, whether or not the
Grand Jury which indicted and ac-
cused the defendants herein, having
called said defendants before it and
questioned them concerning the sub
ject matter of the indictment and ac-
cusations, invaded the right which is
guaranteed persons who are under ex-
animation on some criminal charge by
Section 13 of Article l. of the Consti-
tuition.
1t is admitted that both Leonard and
Sheehan were brought before the
Grand Jury, by a regularly issued pro-
cess Of that body, commanding them
to appear before it and testify.
1t is admitted, in the cases of Drem-
an and Jenkins, that word was sent to
them through the Sheriff by the Grand
Jury, inviting them to come before it
for the purpose of explaining certain
mauers in connection with their Off
Ri nl dlTffn
county.
The evidence shows, in the latter
cases. that Dreman and Jenkins were
not sworn by the Foreman of the
Grand Jury, but that they were ques-
toned concerning the matter upon
which the accusations are based, to
Wit: the publication of the proclama-
ton of the general election in more
than one newspaper in the county, and
that they admitted that they had voted
to authorize such publications. 1t was
also shown by the evidence that a
member of the Grand Jury called the
attention of Dreman and Jenkins to
the law, which provides that the proc
lamation of a general election must
be published in but one newspaper of
the county, and that they were asked
if they did not know that to be the
law, to which they responded in the
negative.
In the Sheehan case the evidence dis
C Oses the fact that the defendant was
not only subpenaed to appear before
the Grand Jury at a certain time and
testify concerning certain matters
but that neither the Foreman nor any
other member of the Grand Jury in
formed him of his rights as a defend
ant or an accused on the occasion of
his first appearance before that body.
The minutes of the Secretary how
ever, show that some days subsequent
to his first appearance before the
Grand Jury the Foreman did state to
him that he was to be examined as a
witness in relation to matters which
might involve an indictment against
him. and that any testimony that he
might give at that time might be used
against him.
In the case of Leonard, as has al
ready been stated, the testimony estab-
fishes the fact that he was also sub
penaed to appear before the Grand
Jury at a certain time; that he ap-
peared in response to said subpoena, and
that he was then informed that he
would be questioned as a witness rela-
tive to matters which had been re-
ferred to by one of the newspapers of
this city in a series of articles reflect
ing upon the official integrity of GER
tain public officials, of whom he was
one. The evidence also shows in his
case. that later on in the investigation
of these general charges against muni-
cipal officers. the defendant Leonard
was questioned with reference to a
transaction. a specific allusion to
which had not been made by said
newspaper and which involved his Off
cial integrity. and upon which the ac-
cusation now pending against him was
based 1t appears from the evidence
that at no time Immediately prior to
the questioning of Leonard concern
ing the alleged transaction out of
which grew the accusation against
him. was he informed of his rights as
a defendant by the Foreman or any
other member of the Grand Jury On
the contrary, it is shown by the tes-
timony that he was informed but once
of his right. and that was, as stated,
when he appeared before the Grand
Jury upon the general charges involv
ing the members of the City Board of
Trustees and other municipal officers.
1t is in my judgment, immaterial,
however. whether the defendants. hav
ing been subpenaed to appear before
the Grand Jury to testify as witnesses
and having given testimony concerning
the subject matter of the Indictment
and accusations against them, were in
formed of their rights or not. The au-
fh0ririGS n