Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1903-11-24
RICH ARDS OPES
FORMER sLEuTH's ATTORNEYS
ARE PREPARING APPEAL IN
ROBBERY CASE.
Attorney Mentzer Of Knoxville, Chief
Counsel for the Former Federal OF.
ficer, Thinks Client VIII Get Favor.
able Decision From Supreme Court.

Is DeS Molnes, Nov. 23.--GreaL conf
dence ia the ultimate acquittal of for
lsler Deputy United States Marshal w.
A.gRichards is expressed by w. c.
Nfetlt2tr e,f Knoxville, who was chief
counsel for Richards during his trial
for the robbery of Mr.. and Mrs. Peter
4 Sullivan. who We're compelled to turn
over $1,000 to llighwaymen who in
vaded their own home at Hamilton al
4 most q year ago.
Mentzer visited the state house
Saturday and consulted with the gov
ernor concerning other matters In
regard to the Richards case, however,
he talked freely of his plans for the
appeal and says he is rapidly per-
fecting them. The fact that a YER
dict OF guilty was a surprise to most
of those who had followed the pro-
ceedings closely, especially those who
had been in attendance AT the trial,
encourages Mentzer 10 think that when
once his case is taken up by the SUI
prenle court a reversal may be granted
and that the worst he can hope for is
n .iew, trial.
R,cli;n dis is living in Des Moines and
sh;lres with his attorney the hope of
ultimate acquittal Those who thought
his bonds We're insufficient to mold
s him are finding there is no apparent
dfSiS,sfion to run away. To use Rich
ards cfWr words: Il would rather be
dead tnan a fugitive" He and Ment-
yer are bending every energy to the
perfection of the appeal.
TIE cIiief allegation as a ground of
error i'll the appeal will be the conten-
ticil that IN admitting a telegram i'll
esideolce which purported to have
been sent to Baird by Richards APP
pcis5ng the latter that the time had
afrHs,d Tor him to come and join in
tie robbery. the trial judge made a
serious error that prejudiced the case
b such an extent as to cause q conyic-
fiol where aoGuittal was otherwise
prlti;able.
Tho ai'ta;tion regarding the inn
paneling of the grand jury is the same
as was made in the appeal of the case
by Mr.. Mentzer. 1t is charged that
the law requires that the judge draw
the names of grand jurors in open
i court Mentzer claims that in the
Baird and Richards cases the jury was
ernpaneled in a room entirely separat-
ed from that dedicated for court ptr-
poses and that it was behind closed
doors. This is said to be a very seri-
Gus defect from a legal standpoint and
may of itself constitute sufficient
grounds for ordering a new trial.
The Telegram.
Mentzer claims that the admission
Of the telegram in the trial of Rich
out in his appeal that the telegram
was not sufficiently identified as com
Ing from Richards to give it any stand
ing In court and therefore should not
have been admitted. He claims that
the operator who transmitted it to
Baird described the sender of the mes
& sage very differently from the
appearance of Richards, and that the
only statement upon which the adj
mission of the telegram was based was
his subsequent testimony that to the
best OF his Judgment the man was
+ Richards or someone closely resem-
bling him. Mentzer claims that this
witness testimony was conflicting and
( that to him personally the operator
had declared that he did not believe
Richards to be the sender of the mes
sage.
The message contained no reference
TO the robbery, but Baird testified that
its contents had been previously
agreed upon between Richards and
himself as the signal for his departure
from Creston to Hamilton.
This message and the operators
statement partially identifying Rich
ards as the sender We're one of the
chief clements in securing convic-
tion.