The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-02-27
The STATE RESTS
Evidence Against Cohen All in
Marie Meyers Is Recalled by
the Prosecution.
Judge Pond Rules Against the State
as to Evidence Involving Other
Offenses.

case at 1880 this morning. The defense
is now having it's inning. The defendant
will go on the stand in his own behalf.
The defense, as indicated by the prog
ress thus far, seems clearly to be that
the defendant did not visit the Meyers
charged in the indictment. A case OF
mistaken identity with the inference Of
coercion Of the complaining witness by
the state is apparently the cornerstone
Of the structure Of Cohen's defense.
Joseph Cohen must be found guilty or
innocent solely upon the evidence show
ing the commission of the one offense
charged in the indictment-namely. that
he accepted money from Marie Meyers
with the understanding that protection
would be extended to her.
This is the ruling Of Judge Pond. 1t
is in line with the supreme court decision
in the Fitchette case but differs from the
rulings made by other Judges of the dis
trict court in similar cases.
Evidence tending to show the commits
sion of other offenses has been complete
ly barred by Judge Ponds ruling made
this morning and no state witnesses will
be allowed to show intention or scheme
or system" The decision is a victory
for the defense and greatly Weakens the
states case.
Z
In rendering his opinion barring this
collateral evidence, Judge Pond said:
1T is not pleasant to run counter in my
rulings here to rulings made by other
judges in similar cases, but this case will
have to be tried upon the law as under
stand it to be.
"The. crime charged in the Indictment
under which the. defendant is being tried
is for the compromising Of "a felony or the
compromising Of crime, as stated in the
indictment The gist of this charge is, as
I understand it, that Mr.. Cohen on the
evening of April 80, 1902, went to GER
tain house of i'll fame in this city kept by
Marie Meyers and demanded Of her a
certain sum of money upon the promise
then made that he would protect her from
being prosecuted for the offense OF keep
ing a. house Of i'll fame or that he would
abstain from or withhold evidence. That
is the charge.
IF the jury are able to find that Mr..
Cohen did go to Marie Meyers and did
receive from her the sum of SIS upon an
understanding or agreement, expressed or
implied, to the effect that he would not
prosecute her for the offense Of keeping a
house of i'll fame or that he would see
that others did not prosecute her, or with
hold evidence, then he is undoubtedly gull
ty of the crime charged, Of compromising
a crime. :. That is the only question there
lis in this case, and the visits to other
houses for a, similar purpose are absolutely
immaterial in the trial of this CASE
Marie Meyers Recalled.
The county attorney attempted to bring
out some matters in connection with a
recent conversation between the witness
and the wife and sister-in-law of the de-
PENDANT.
| The defense stipulated that no further
effort would be made to impeach the wit
ness in regard to the conversation had
with Mrs. Cohen and thereupon the OBJ
lection to further testimony along this
line was sustained. -s1a W .a-i.4s -.
| Mr.. aBoardman reopened's the matter OF
Miss Meyers conversation with Cohen at
his store last Saturday. The witness re-
peated her testimony of yesterday tc
the effect that she told the defendant
| that she could not swear that he was the
man who had collected the SIS paid by
her for protection
| Mr.. Kolliner objected to the woman's
| testimony; and caustically implied that
since yesterday the witness might have
been tempered with by the county at.
| tOrney.
I'm the meantime night has inter.
vened,'' he said, land the county attorney
has been closeted with the witness and
I do not believe the defense should be put
lin the position of having the witness
/ y.
by the county attorney. Yesterday the
witness was upon the stand and was ex.
amined at length by Mr.. Boardman, anG
then, and not now, was the proper time
/ for these questions"
| Judge Pond overruled the objection ant
Mr.. Boardman proceeded to strengthen hi!
| witness testimony.
Why She Wasn't Sure.
"Why did you make that statement t.
Mr.. Cohen concerning your not being abb,
to identify him."
st said it so they would leave me alone
so they wouldn't bother me and I coult
live in peace =
i "You knew he was the man to whom
you paid the money!"
eyes, SIR
stYou knew that at the time you wer
talking to him in the store?"
Yes, sir.
'Ias anybody approached you to tall
ito you about this case?''
1 Eyes, sir
i ''Who was it,"
"Dr. Cohen
Testimony as to the nature of DR.. CO
hens talk with the woman was ruled o,
and the witness was turned over to M
i Hall for cross-examination.
you had an interview this mornin
with Mr.. Boardman, did you not?" eye
sir"
county attorney, II don't know no
long, but it was only for few minutes
"Why were you weeping when you can
Z out?" II wasn't weeping" replied tt
witness Indignantly.
}. I Addie Mills was called. and Mr.. Board
man attempted to have her testify as 4
the conversation between Miss Meye
: and the two Mrs Cohens. Counsel oil
> jected, and the court sustained the obje,
!. ton.
Mr.. Boardman renewed his offer to sho
= the visits of the defendant to disorder
houses other than that Of Marie Meyers
'"The ruling of the court on this questie
: will stand remarked Judge Pond
Defense Move. for Dismissal.
: wThen the state rests said Mr.. Boar
: man, and Mr. Hall, for the defense, NOV,
d the commission of any offense adduce,
: had not been evidence sufficient to pro,
e the commission Of any .offenseadduce
The motion, after argument on both side
was denied .ap
u Mr.. Kolliner began his opening for Il
e defense shortly before noon.
WIRTENsoHN WAS CALLED
His Testimony Was Re.trIeted ey 4