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

any of the grand jurors, although it
was apparent that at least one Of
them had violated his oath by telling
what transpired in the jury room and
was there fore liable for contempt Of
court.
Prosecutor Upham vigorously attack
ed the allegations that he threatened
to discharge the grand jurors if they
failed to indict the accused bankers
and have the Jurors punished. He
declared that it was not possible to
dismiss a grand jury and draw anoth-
er one to deliberate on the same mat
ters under the circumstances. He
charged that the real purpose of the
attorneys Tor the defense was to Sc
cure ali possible information concern
ing tie finding of the indictments,
which, he insisted, should be kept
strictly secret.
He insisted that it would be neces-
sary for the defense to prove how
certain jurymen voted to sustain their
allegations that certain jurors were
coerced into finding the indictments
against their will. This he said was
not possible under the law, which he
says they might be called on to tell
certain things when summoned before
court of justice, but only in cases
of perjury.
Virgil p. Kline, of Cleveland, was
first to argue the oyerruling of the
motion. He said he was willing to
accept the motion as a demurrer. He
laid much stress on upholding the
dignity of courts of justice, which
could not be done if prosecutors were
allowed to take illegal and dangerous
privileges with the jurors during their
deliberations. 1t was the intention
Of the law that the grand jurors
should be unbiased. He denied the
right of the prosecuting attorney to
be in the room during the delibera-
tions of the jurors. AS the prosecu-
tor took no oath to keep the delibera-
tions of the grand jury a secret he
saw no reason why he could not be
put on the stand and examined as to
what transpired in the grand jury
room Attorney Kline further con-
tended that even the official stenog-
rapher was compelled by law to retire
from the room during the delibera-
tions of the Jurors.
Under the law Mr.. Line held that
the prosecutor could merely give le-
gal advice but could not express an
opinion as to either the guilt or inno-
cence of the accused persons. He
held the indictments were those of
the grand jurors and not those of the
prosecutor and that their opinions as
to guilt or innocence and not his
should prevail. Under the law the
prosecutor should even refuse to ex-
press an opinion when asked to do
so. If all was true that was alleged
in the pleas in abatement he could
not imagine great abuse of justice.
He cited many authorities to support
his contention. In a case in COshoc-
ton short time ago he held that
under similar conditions a demurrer
of the district prosecuting attorney
was overruled and the plea in
abatement declared to be good. He
said it was not necessary to consider
the evidence before the grand jury
until that subject was reached.
Il am willing to admit" continued
Mr.. Kline, that we can only estab-
lish the facts contained in these pleas
in abatements by the affidavits of the
grand jurors, which hold are perfect
ly competent under the statutes"
j. P. Dawley continued the argu
ment in behalf of the defendants to
have the motion oyerruled. He de-
clared that Prosecuting Attorney Up
ham had during the course of his ar
gument practically admitted that