The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1906-02-23

some juror had broken his oath and
revealed what transpired during the
deliberations of the grand jury. It
must be believed, he added, that all of
the Jurors were honest in their delib-
erations. Then Mr.. Dawley turned
his attention to Prosecutor Upham
and pointed the finger of scorn at
him, drawing at the same time vivid
picture of what might result should
the "pernicious practices of the prose
cutting attorney" be continued. He de-
clared the language attributed to Mr.
Upham was enough to set aside any
Indictment all indictments that might
be found by the grand jury.
81 am sure" shouted Mr.. Dawley
that this court will not allow the
prosecuting attorney to stab justice in
the heart, nail it in coffin and nave
| engraved on the name plate Justice
died in January 1906 1t is the con
duct of the prosecuting attorney that
we are investigating; not the grand
jury. He claimed the grand jury
might tell some of the things that
transpired in the jury room and cited
cases to bear out his contention. He
admitted they could not tell how they
voted, how others voted or what opin-
ion they held as to the guilt or inno.
cence of the men accused.
Judge Hole interrupted Mr.. Dawley
to Inquire if the substantiation of the
allegations in the pleas in abatement
would not involve the discovery of
| how at least three of the jurors voted.
| Otherwise the court did not see how
| 1t could be proven that any of the
jurors were coerced into voting in
favor of an indictment.
Ex-Judge Francis ]. Wing, of Cleve-
land, opened his argument by inquir-
ing of the court if it was right and
legal to secure indictments by intim.
idation and coercion. He declared the
acts alleged against Prosecutor Up
ham would be a penitentiary offense
were money secured instead of an in
dictment. He set up the claim that
the action of the prosecutor corrupt
ed the jury and rendered void their
indictments. He held that the sus-
tanning of the pleas in abatement did
not prevent the reindictment of the
accused men should another grand
jury decide they were guilty.
Judge Hole interrupted Attorney
Wing to ask him if it was not neces-
sary to show in the pleas in abate-
ment that each man indicted had been
prejudiced by the acts of the prosecu-
ting attorney. The court said the
pleas failed to allege that the defend
ants were not guilty as charged in
the indictments.
After Judge Wing had concluded
his argument Prosecutor Upham be-
gan his argument He opened by re-
marking that he would show the rela-
tive right of the official stenographer
and the prosecutor to remain in the
grand jury room during the delibera-
tions of the jurors.
Il think | am ready to hold" inter
rupted the court, that the prosecutor
and his assistant have a right at all
times to remain in the grand jury
room during the deliberations of the
jurors"
This point settled, Prosecutor Up
ham resumed. He declared that the
pleas in abatement should give the
language of the prosecuting attorney
and leave it for the court to decide if
coercion or threats were used to pro-
cure the indictments. In loud voice
he declared that the pleas in abate-
ment were a mass of conclusions.
Il consider it the duty of the prose
cutting attorney to give to the grand
jurors all the advice needed" added
Upham.
"In what way?" asked Attorney
William A. Lynch.
Never mind brother Lynch" snap
ped Upham. "If you want to make
this argument | will stop. / will say
right here that as long as | am pros
ecuting attorney of Stark county |
will prosecute. l will give to grand
jurors all the advice | think they
need"
with. what regard?" queried Lynch.
with regard to law" shouted Up
ham, pointing finger of scorn at
Attorney Lynch.
The arguments were completed
about 4 O'Clock. 1t was decided to
hear arguments in the cases of Wal
ters and Lawrence who charge addi.
tional grounds in their pleas in abate-
ment next Friday morning. All of the
others have agreed to abide by the
decision in the plea in abatement filed
in behalf of Miller, which was consid-
cred yesterday. They are represent
ed by Clark & Clark, W. L. Davis is
represented by Weber & Turner and
former Judge Wing of Cleveland, Har-
vey H. Miller by Virgil p Kline and
William A. Lynch, Corwin d. Bachtel
by j. p. Dawley of Cleveland and
Welty & Albaugh, C. H. Van Horn by
4 n L.