Los Angeles herald., 1909-05-07
LAWYERS FIGHT
TO THROW OUT
BRIBERY CASES
EVERY LEGAL ARTIFICE USED
BY ATTORNEYS
VALIDITY OF SPECIAL GRAND
JURY CHALLENGED
Representatives Of sehenck and
5roadhead Question Indictments
Against Former Officials and
Raise Technical Points
i ccoMPANIED BY numerous mo-

A CCOMPANIED by numerous mo-
| IN tions to quash the indictments,
\ challenges as to the citizenship
and other qualifications of the MEM
bers of the recent grand jury and wit
nesses who appeared before that body
accusations of bias and every techni-
cality that was possible Of presentment,
the opening chapter in what is likely
to prove one of the longest drawn out
legal battles in the history Of the GRIM
inal courts of Los Angeles was begun
| in Judge Davis court in the hail OF
! Justice Yesterday when Thomas II.
Broadhead, former chief of police, and
Samuel w. Schenck, former police COM
missioner, appeared to plead to bribery
| charges contained in true bills returned
several weeks ago.
Interspersed in the arguments on
| both sides charges of misconduct on
the part of opposing counsel, appeals
to the court TO protect the one witness
called during the day from insult, sar-
casm and efforts to ridicnle the con-
| tentlons put forward by prosecution
and defense entered into the proceed
ings. imparting to them a degree of
excitement, which, however, was never
allowed to go beyond certain point,
| Judge Davis interrupting with low
voice, but with a firmness that pre-
cluded any possibility of further dis
sension and compelling counsel for the
indicted men to take refuge in recorded
exceptions to his rulings.
Oswald Has Body Guard
The opening of court found large
| number of persons in the room in re-
sponse TO subpoenas served at the in
| stance of Broadhead's and Schenck's 3
| ArT nd
Sehenck. Included in the number We're
a half score of the members of tho
| special grand jury, Nick Oswald.
! former tenderloin ruler accompanied
by a bodyguard and several grand
| Jury witnesses while District Attor-
nev Fredericks and Deputies w j.
Ford and G. Ray Horton, in charge OF
the prosecution, We're also summoned
as witnesses to testify in the proceed
ings by which the defense hopes TO
have the indictments thrown out of
Icou-t.
Broadhead's case was first taken up
and Attorney Appel called the courts
attention to the fact that subpoenas
ISSUED for j. f. Fishburn, foreman OF
the special grand jury; Luther Over,
1 c.. f. w. Palmer and j. E. Shuey,
members of that body; q. T. Earl, Tom
Savage, Walter Parker and w. Fl.
/ McDermott had been returned with a
notice that they could not be found.
s.Inasmuch as we have a challenge to
the grand jury panel and to each m
dividual member of the grand jury, we
cannot proceed until all these jurors
are present." he said.
Let me hear your motions first"
said Judge Davis, quietly.
! Mr.. Appel then moved TO set aside
1 the indictments against Broadheads
because. he alleged, the defendant prior
to the finding of the Indictment had
no opportunity to challenge the grand
jury that the indictment was found
without the concurrence OF at least
twelve competent jurors; that the fore
man was disqualified to act as such;
! that the names of the jurors We're not
| inserted at the foot of the indictment;
that the defendant had not been rur-
nished with copy of all testimony
concerning the subject matter OF the
charge against him; that the jurors
considered other evidence than that
furnished by witnesses, and that there
was not sufficient evidence to show
crime had been committed.
Challenges Grand Jury
| He followed the motions by reading
his challenges of the jurymen's citl-
zenship, declared a statement of mind
| existed on the part of each juror, pre-
venting them from acting impartially:
that the names of the jurors did not
appear on the assessment rolls of the
county; that the court had no juris-
diction to call a special grand jury.
! and that there is no law under which
a special grand jury may be convened.
District Attorney Fredericks replied
| for the prosecution. I'VE will MAINTAIN
that the grand jury which returned the
indictments was not special grand
| Jury, but had all the powers of a regu-
| lar grand jury, and there was no llmi-
tations to it's Investigation he said.
| In regard to the testimony before the
| 4 he oAd
the prosecution was that the jury con-
sidered many cases, and what might be
direct testimony in one case would be
hearsay in another. "The testimony
material to the cases now before the
court has been furnished to the de-
fendants," he added.
Attorney Schenck, in behalf of his
! brother, presented three motions and a
challenge. Except for the first mo-
tion, the other objections raised by Mr..
Schenck to further proceedings were
similar to those filed by Mr. Appel.
| II move to strike the Indictment from
! the files on the ground that it is unin-
tellgible,'' he said, quoting from. the
court rules to show that no document
containing interlineations shall be filed
unless the writing-in is noted by the
clerk of the court
Here is my copy Of the Indictment"
he said handing the paper to Judge
Davis. "I cannot read part of it, and
the original copy is worse than TINS
one."
Writing lIegihle
Judge Davis was apparently unable
to decipher the written words near the
end of the indictment and called for
the original copy He was equally at
sea in his efforts to read the recorded
paper
LET me see it, interjected Mr..
Fredericks. ''It reads, the same being
crime and crimes coming under the
laws of California
''Why, that's as easy as falling or
a log" he added
Ibid you write 1t, Captain Freder-
icks?" demanded Mr.. Schenck.
YES" responded the district attor-
ney
'sWen, that explains it, said the
attorney. and, turning to the court
added: 1.-THE only thing I wish to say
on this motion is that the rules OF the
frnw4tur,md pn0a rival