The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1909-11-26
From Saturdays Daily.


ed the motion for the state, and Ar
thur Schaub appeared for the motion.
Mr.. Peterson addressed the court
first. and said that it did not appear
that the motion was made on any
statutory grounds The first ground,
that w. r. Geddes' name appears on
by reason of legal insufficency shown.
The law requires that the names OF
all witnesses be attached to the in
dictment.
AS to Mr. Geddes being present and
advising the grand jury in the case,
he was engaged by the county attor-
ney to assist the public prosecutor,
and he became public prosecutor. 1t
would have been entirely proper for
an assistant county attorney to have
gone before the jury, and why should
one who acts in the capacity of
public prosecutor not be permitted to
appear before the grand jury and give
advice. However, an affidavit would
| be presented to show unequivocally
| that Geddes did not advise the grand
| jury.
Communicated Facts to Geddes.
The secont- grcu.ad for the motion
was that W. r. Geddes was urged
Iby the defendant to be his counsel
and that he thereupOn communicated
certain facts to Mr.. Geddes. The law
/! holds that without the consent of the
lclient statements made to his attorney
/ cannot be transmitted on examination.
! The defense must prove that the
relation OF client and attorney existed,
land that Geddes communicated to the
grand jury facts given him by Smith
as his attorney. Geddes was engaged
| June 30 to assist the state, while the
motion says that the statements to
Geddes by Smith were not made until
early i'll July. There is no way to
lprOve what witness testifes to be-
fore the grand jury, as the law forbds
jurors from stating it, and neither
Geddes nor Smith can be called Smith
cannot know under the law what was
testified to before the grand jury. The
law presumes that whatever Geddes
testified to was allowable and proper,
and not things that happened during
a relationship of client and attorney.
1t is notorious and is shown by the
files of the court that Smith has vol
UNFAIRLY made free and open confess
SlOU III open COul dC UHS y
hearing. Would not this have been a
waiver of the right of privilege on
behalf of Smith? Geddes could not
have made a broader statement than
Smith made under oath, and could not
therefore have violated the sacred re-
lation of attorney and client. Even if
such relation existed, showing
must be made that communication
was made in violation of this, which
has not been done.
Statements of Smith.
The statements of Smith amount to
complaints of witness to public
prosecutor. The law encourages and
requires it, and provides that this does
not bring about the relationship of
client and attorney. A complaint to
the county attorney does not give
privilege. In the case at bar, the
statements to Geddes amount to nc
more than this, as Geddes was acting
as public prosecutor and county attor
ney. Good order and law requires that
this be the case.
The third ground is that Geddes
while representing the state, wrong.
fully obtained confessions on prom
Use as to his punishment. This ques-
ton of dureas can 60 no further than
to raise the question of the advisa-
bility of the evidence before the petit
Jury. 1t is not statutory ground foI
setting aside an Indictment.
The grounds had been argued as
to their legal sufficiency, without re.
gard to any affidavits on the part OF
he state. Affidavits of fact were
presented to resist the motion and
clearly controvert the facts shown by
the defense, if any had been shown
Mr.. Peterson then read the affidavits
\ The Geddes Affidavit.
w. R. Geddes made affidavit that
]. f. Robb called him June % by tele
phone and said that Frank Smith
wished to retain him and wished him
10 call at the jail to consult Geddes
had informed Robb that he could moi
and would not take Smiths case, and
Robb informed him afterwards that
: ne had so told Smith. Geddes had
) never advised with Smith as his at
tornev and had never received or asked
any compensation On June 80. he
was engaged by Blue Earth county tc
assist the county attorney After that
he consulted with Smith frequently
| W sScb at tlc ldCtS III Iue case, dUU
i, informed Smith that ne was acting
with the county attorney, and Smith
talked freely and said he was willing
to give all the facts. Geddes never
counseled or advised Smith as to his
defense. He never saw him until July
|, when County Attorney Plymat in,
troduced them, and told Smith that
Geddes had been retained to assist tine
Estate.
j. E. Robb's affidavit was to the
same effect as the first part of the
foregoing affidavit. He had on June
2S told Smith that Geddes could not
and would not become his attorney.
County Attorney Plymat made aft.
davit to the introduction and telling
Smith that Geddes was engaged to as,
sist the state.
G. G. Phillips testified that on July
y Smith told Geddes that he had nc
attorney and no money to get one
and that Geddes had said that the
court would appoint an attorney fol-
him.
Denial By Geddes.
A supplemental affidavit by Mr.
Geddes denied that he advised the
grand jury as to the accusation
against Smith, and denied that he ever
told Smith that he was his attorney
or would help him, or would keer