Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-02-13
IMMUNITY
CONTRACT IS
RUEF'S HOPE
BOSS HOPES TO PROVE HENEY
BROKE FAITH
AcH AND PROSECUTOR IN LIVELY
TILT
Counsel fo- "Abe" Says He Can Prove
by Affidavits That District
Attorneys Office Made
Promises


SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. IL. - That
there was not single allegation OF
fact in the affidavit of Abraham Ruef
with reference to his understanding
with the prosecution for immunity
was the declaration of Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Francis j. Heney today
after Henry Ach, counsel for Ruef,
had occupied the entire morning with
argument and citation of authorities
in support of his motion for the Vaca-
ton OF Ruef's arraignment on the
United Railroads trolley franchise in
dictments.
Ruef's counsel last Monday set forth
that the defendant was improperly
arraigned on the ground that he was
not represented by counsel; was not
asked by the court If he desired coun-
sell; was not informed that he was en-
titled to counsel and not given an OPP
portunity to secure the same; that the
Indictment was not read to him, and
that a true copy of the same was not
delivered to the defendant.
Formal motions for the vacation of
the arraignment and requesting a re-
arraignment were made today by coun-
sci for Ruef in addition to those made
last Monday. If sustained it would
enable Ruef to withdraw his plea and
attack the indictments with demur-
rers and motions to set aside.
To Hear of Immunity Contract
1t was apparent from the remarks
of Judge Lawlor that the entire mat
ter of immunity contract will have to
be threshed out in his hearing prelimi-
nary to the actual trial of Ruef in
order to enable the court to determine
whether the defendant has any relief
in law because of his allegation that
the prosecution, and not he, broke the
agreement.
Judge Lawlor continued the matter
until Friday morning and requested
that at that time the court be fully
advised by both sides as to the law
relative to the granting of immunity
to persons charged with crime.
The court also asked counsel for
Ruef to be prepared to put in as evil
dence all testimony that the defense
has In the form of affidavits, fully COW
ering the allegations of Ruef that he
had an immunity contract with the
prosecution and that the latter de-
elined to keep the agreement.
Ach prefaced his argument. contin-
ued from last Monday. in again justi-
flying a technical defense by quoting
from the decision of United States Cir
cult Judge Phillips in the North Da-
11ota case OF Nurnberger VS.. the United
States. as follows:
Justice takes delight in according to
every human DHi1R accused OF CRIME Il
fair and impartial trial. Prescribed
rules of criminal procedure are the out
growth of long and sane experience.
buttressed by the earnest study and
wisdom Of jurists and lawgivers. They
may be hedged about by some refine
ments, unjustly stigmatized by over
jealous partisans as mere technlcali-
ties yet judicial, impartial history at
tests the fact that often they consti-
tute effective barriers against unrea =
soning passion and the behests of
epasmodic clamor."
To File AffidaVits
Counsel for Ruef gave notice that he
would file afildavits practically con-
tanning the terms of the immunity
agreement between the prosecution
and Ruef as he could not introduce the
original contract. because 1t was in
the hands of man named Burns"
Assistant District Attorney John
O'Gara asked that Ruef be more spe-
eifc in his affidavit with reference to
the immunity contract. stating the
time. place and substance of converse
tions between himself and the repre-
sentatives and agents of the prosecu-
ton else the court could not consider
the affidavit.
I'VE don't have to disclose our de-
Tense i'll this hearing" replied Ach.
WHY bOll L you answer tfle dlIftlaN1I
There is nothing to answer" de-
elared Heney. There is not single
allegation of fact in the affidavit"
IT believe there are so many facts
that the prosecution evidently is hav-
ing difficulty in answering II, since no
answer has yet been made in this
court. although several continuances
wer asked for that purpose retorted
Ach.
Heney supported O'Garas conten-
tion and declared that Ruef had not set
out in his affidavit what the alleged
immunity contract was and what it
contained or shown that he had fully
complied with its provisions. Heney
argued that If Ruef had not complied
with it in every respect that he waived
I'll his rights and that the statements
made would then be considered to be
voluntary.
1T is clear case of waiver" said
the assistant district attorney, "unless
he acted upon misrepresenta ton of the
district attorney and relied upon those
Misrepresentation. That is the real
question raised here"
1.-THE facts are fully set forth in Mr.
Ruefs affidavit, replied Ach.
No Facts, Says Heney
He has not stated single fact In
so far as they concerned Mr. Heney,'
ASIldIHu IHS ldIleT Win
asperity, as he jumped 10 his feet.
Let them specify the time and the
conversations that he had with me
III waive the place.
I'VE will make our proofs when we
get our denials from tho other side, .
said Ach.
Judge Lawlor plainly intimated that
it would be necessary to fully go into
the immunity contract matter in order
to enable him to rule intelligently and
determine whether the law afforded
Ruef any relief.
Ach declared it would be necessary
to introduce oral testimony as he
could not get all the persons involved
to make affidavts.
For instance" said he, 1--WE want al
affidavit from Mr.. Heney. and I now
ask him when l may call on him tC
get It,"
you can draw upon your magma,
ton for It, replied Heney.
"That shows the court that we can
not get affldavlts from everybody,
said Ach
Judge Lawlor. however, declared h,
would not hear oral testimony in THU
inquiry.
HOTEL GREEN, PASADENA.
Finest Winter Resort in the World.
r II HOLINESS Mana o-ar