The Spokane press. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1902-1939, 1909-03-12

JuuSC IIuuChC CApSCICu " ACPiJ
to the request of the grand jury for
a full report of it's proceedings
when court convened this after.
noon, but at this time Prosecutor
Pugh Informed the court that he
was not fully satisfied that the fl
ing of instructions to the grand
jury as proposed this morning, for
bidding full shorthand report, was
the proper basis for an appeal to
the supreme court and asked an in
diligence until tomorrow morning
in order to make certain.
In the meanwhile he said there
were several witnesses not of major
importance who could testify be-
fore the grand jury this afternoon
under the present arrangement and
their examination could proceed.
The court granted this request,
and the matter of recording the
testimony went over until tomor-
row morning.
Judge w. A. Huneke, who has
charge of the grand jury, this
morning handed down a ruling to
the effect that the prosecutor or his
duty can take notes, OF the grand
jury evidence in long hand but that
no verbatum shorthand notes of
the testimony can be taken by the.
prosecutor or his deputy.
Prosecutor Pugh requested thar
the ruling Of the court be made, In
such manner that an appeal can be
taken. and by agreement the court
reduced his findings to the form OF
special instruction to the grand
Jury.
In this instruction the grand jury
is again reminded Of the fact that
q clerk to be elected from among
their number is the only person au-
thorized under the law to take
notes Of the evidence: Should the
prosecutor or any of his deputies
attempt to take any notes OF the
proceedings in shorthand the grand
jury is called upon to ask them to-
desist. Should no attention be paid
to the request by the prosecutor or
his deputy then the grand jury is
to report the matter to the court.
The prosecutor being an officer of
the court can be punished for con-
tempt for violation of the courts
order.
This ruling of the court was en-
tered after a morning spent In ar
gument by Attorney Frank Graves,
representing Judge Gordon. and
Prosecutor Pugh. Various citations
were given by Pugh from the high
or court rulings in other states that
permitted stenographic reports of
the evidence taken before the
grand jury or held that such YER
batium reports were no bar to the
legality of an Indictment. Mr..
Pugh said that a grand jury investi.
CATION without verbatim report OF
the evidence would to q great en-.
tent be nullified. Witnesses for the
prosecution in the case of indicted
persons could perjure themselves
at will on the trial of the case be-
fore a jury II no stenographic re-
ports OF their evidence before the
grand jury existed.
Frank Graves, on behalf of Judge
Gordon, argued that the Washing
ton statute was specific, and that
the present dispute was not an ef-
fort to Quash an indictment but to
secure correct procedure in this,
this first grand Jury called In Judge
Huneke's court. He insisted that
Gordon had a vested right in hav-
ing the grand jury proceed accord.
ing to law, even though the action
of the prosecutor might hereafter
be the ground for proceeding to
quash the indictment. He denied
that the various motions and objec-
lions Of the counsel for Gordon
were intended to be dilatory, cap.
tious or obstructive, but instead
were intended to compel the pro-
ceedings In. connection with the
grand jury to be entirely In accord
ance with the law and the dignity
OF the courts. -
PROSECUTOR Pugh remarked that
he thought It was strange that the
counsel for Gordon was SO solicit
tious to maintain the secrecy OF the
grand jury and so strongly opposed
to taking verbatim report of the
evidence. Tie did not ask the court
to permit him to engage In any ir-
regular practice. He said the rule
sought to be invoked against him