The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-05
Irwin A. GARDENERS Motion for a
New Trial Heard by su-
preme Court.
His Evidence Before Grand Jury the
Point on Which Battle
Is Fought.

Irwin A. Gardner sat in the supreme
court room this morning with an impressive
face, while his attorney, Harry S. Mead,
made a last attempt to save DR.. Ames
former go-betWeen from six years at Still
water. .Sss- =>s-s@
The argument was brief. and mainly on
one point. Mr.. Mead contended that in
cailpg Gardner before the grand jury
ana taxing his testimony, and later in in
uictlng MN, the state transgressed the
RUE That man shall not be compelled to
give testimony incrimfna ting himself. It
was urged that. the court erred in not
quash1ng the indictment on this ground.
Chief Justice Start raised inquiry whether
II would nave been proper to admit other
eVloence on the line Of Gardeners affidavit,
as TO evidence given before the grand jury.
> States Argument '-
Al ). Smith made, the argument for the
STATE: lie contended on the point raised
by the court that the affidavit filed by
cIardner simply presented a question of
TACT Tor determination by the trial Judge:
that ne found that the affidavit was with
oul !nerlt' ana that the point Of the entire
motlon was whether or not. Gardner had
given evidence before the grand iurv unon
which he might have been indicted thai
"nen the court found, after guments
on the part Of both the defendant and the
state, that the allegations of the affidavit
were without merit. the cour held in eff
Zee, ,ecl that Gardner had not given evidence
p tne grand jury upon which he might
nave peen indicted. Mr.. Smith therefore
urged that the only remaining point for
CONSIDERATION was the refusal of the trial
court 70 permit the defense to go into -,
general nshlng expeditions as to what the
proceedings before the grand jury were.
~. ms under the Hawks case, was within
ne SOUND discretion of the trial Judge. The
lnat the issue now before the court on This
question was whether or not Gardner ha Il
actually given testimony before the grand
dicted I've oeen III
testimony In. the Way.
Inns question was effectually DISPOSED
~ Tue supreme court by Gardeners own
testln1ony' given on the trial. This tes-
tliiohy was part of the record, and It is
~ We Goncluslvely presumed that his testi-
1iloily before the grand jury was the same
Us that given upon the trial. Upon this
testimony OF Gardeners, as will annea,
from the record, no one could have been
lndlcted, least, of all himself. So that If
the trlal court did err in refusing to allow
the nsh1ng expedition, that error, so far az
Tie supreme court was concerned, was
caused by Gardner's own testimony given
on the trial. The only" object Of the fish
ing expedition was to corroborate the
attadaVlt to quasll which affidavit the
tflal Judge found to be without merit. and
winch fishing expedition, had it been
permitted, would. from Gardeners testi-
nony, have produced nothing 70 show tina
gardner did give discriminating evidence
before the grand jury. 49,. .~:'..
1t was further pointed out that the in
aictment was indarsed by the names of
+ Billy Edwards and Link Crossran
which,, under the Hawks case, would
throws the conclusive PRESUMPTION on the
court that the Indictment was found sole
| ~ on their evidence. GARDENERS affidavit
| on the motion to quasl1 did not mention
| the names Of Edwards and Crossman,
I therefore this Particular case Of bribery
| could not have been before" the grand jury
! when Gardner was called. -