The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-05
WHAT HE CONFESSED. |,
Cohen Urges Grand Jury Confession
as Reason for Setting Aside
Indictments.
w. L. Harris, Foreman Of the Grand
Jury, Says Cohen's Testimony
Wasn't Used Against Him.

Judge Elliott heard testimony and list
ened to arguments directed against the
validity Of the last two indictments re-
turned against Joseph Cohen, this morn
ing, and finally took the matter under aid :
Visement -, &
The indictments In question were re-
turned by the present grand jury after
Cohen had been called before it: and A.
Fl. Hall, his attorney, claims that they
We're based, at least in part, upon infor-
nation furnished by Cohen himself. The
defendant was the first witness called
Under questions from his attorney A.
H. Hall, he testified that he had been
summoned before the grand jury and had
been asked regarding the very matters for
which he had been indicted He said the
grand jury had questioned him about the
payment Of money by Jessie Harris and
May Mcintosh, the two transactions set
forth in the indictments. He added that
the entire system of collections had been
gone into. t's .-s.
II was asked if I ever opened the envol-
opes left by the women" said Cohen; eff
ever gave any of the money to the mayor
or to the colonel; how much money was
paid in under the system. The whole
examination was pretty much directed to
my matters. They did go into other cases
slightly, but the bulk Of my examination
was on points connected with my own
case" - :- s+'-.-
The point raised by Mr.. Hall is that the
indictments subsequently returned against
Cohen were based upon his own testimony
and are consequently Illegal.
Under cross examination Cohen said he
had been asked by the grand jury why he
had pleaded guilty and had said that he
did so because an agreement had been
made between his attorney and the county
attorney to let him off with a fine.
SOfdn't Won include the co11rt in hat
statement" demanded Mr.. Boardman.
Il don't know. I supposed the court
knew about it. You yourself told me that
several times. BY Inference, you repeated
it great many times.
Mr.. Boardn1an sought to compel an adj
mission from the witness that the cues
lions asked him had been put with an idea
OF learning whether or not his brother was
implicated in the collections matter: but
this the defendant would not admit.
At the close of Cohen's examination the
defense rested, and County Attorney
Boardman called W. l.. Harris, forema u
Of the grand jury before which Cohen
appeared, as the states first witness.
Mr.. Boardman asked regarding the evil
dence given by Cohen, but Mr.. Hall OBJ
jected. arguing that while it was per
MISSILE to go into the general scope of
the testimony given, the evidence itself
could not be retold outside the Jury
room, except in a case OF perjury. The OBJ
lection was sustained. 49,. -.
The Witness. however, was permitted
to. say that the main matter on which
Cohen was examined had been distinctly
and wholly apart from his own case, al
though the lines Of evidence, he said, had
crossed. b.A T. :.
You have heard Mr.. Cohen's state
ment that, the bulk of his examination
was regarding his OWN matters Is that
true?' asked the county attorney.
Il don't so consider it, replied Mr..
Harris W.. a.sr -fwHwyJn .5.e~>.
did you explain If Mr. Cohen what he
was wanted for?'7' ~ a:9=e7 ~ -
Il said: Mr.. Cohsii. we are trying to
clear up municipal affairs and we think
You can help lis out if you are inclined
to-" -
Did you ask him any questions de-
signed to elecit information regarding M.
l.. Cohen's connection with the graft?'
20, yes; a great manly Of them" -
WAS that the subject Of the exannira-
tion?' @-.'''@' ~'''' ia:
|*And when you asked about that did he
volunteer information regarding the sys-
tenn of collection?'
"He did ~
Mr.. Harris admitted that Cohen's exam
nation had included a number Of CUES
lions about the envelop system and the
ultimate disposition of the money.
AT the time these indictments were
returned against Mr.. Cohen asked the
county attorney, was his testimony be-
fore you? Was it taken into considera-
ton when the indictments were found?''
This was objected to and, after brief
argument, the objection was sustained
However, Mr.. Harris testified that only
two witnesses were examined In each OF
the Cohen cases. Their names appear
upon the indictment and Cofen's name is
not among them.
On cross examination MI. Hall sought
to compel the witness to admit that the
indictments subsequently returned against
Cohen began, so far as the grand jury
was concerned. with his statement of the
reasons which had led him to plead guilty
in a similar case; a plea that was after
wards withdrawn; but Mr.. Harris said he
thought Cohen's statement had nothing
to do with the matter. . r.
''You still recollect the answers made by
Mr.. Cohen before the jury?" asked Mr..
Hall. |e
yes"
"And you did recollect them at the time
the indictments were found?"
Il suppose so, yes. .
That finished . the cross examination,
and the state rested. Cohen was then re-
called to testify that Foreman Harris had
been called from the room to go to the
phone, in the course Of his examination
and consequently could not know all the
questions that had been put to him.
The legal point was then argued briefly
and the court took the matter under adj
visement. ~
Xmas Suggestions.
Fine gold spectacles and eye glasses for
fothor ard mother n r NnvrhVcit1