Los Angeles herald., 1909-05-08
LAWYERS FOR
INDICTED MEN
ARGUE IN VAIN
JUDGE REFUSES TO ADMIT
COVETED TESTIMONY
SLIGHT CONCESSION GRANTED
TO FORMER OFFICIALS
Court Persuaded to Allow Desired
transcripts to Be Marked for
ification-Wranele
Lasts Five Hours

Another five hours of strenuous but
unsuccessful effort on the part of the
attorneys represeting Thomas H.
Broadhead and Samuel Schenck, in
dicted former city officials, to obtain
the testimony of Walter f. Parker, Ed
win T. Earl and other witnesses before
the special grand jury, marked the pro-
ceedings in Judge Davis criminal court
in the Hall of Justice yesterday.
Still contending that the testimony
of these persons is immaterial to the
cases now under consideration, the
prosecution, represented by District At
torney Fredericks and his deputies,
Messrs. Horton and Ford, was, If any
thing, more insistent than on Thursday
that the two large volumes containing
the statements of the witnesses shall
not be delivered into the hands of the
defendants attorneys.
IF this testimony is not material in
these cases, then its production cannot
aid us; if it is material, the defendants
are legally entitled to it," said Attorney
Paul Schenck. 1--WE contend that the
names of all the witnesses we have
named should have been placed at the
foot of the indictments, as their state
ments, if they did not directly concern
the subject matters contained in the in
dictments, at least influenced the minds
of the grand Jurors against the men
here charged with committing crimes"
Says Testimony Is Hearsay
1.-THE testimony sought to be OBJ
tanned by the defendants is hearsay,
and if the names of the witnesses who
gave that testimony were placed at the
foot of the indictments it would result
in their being set aside Besides, the
secrecy of the grand jury room must
be observed" was the response of the
district attorney.
Taking these respective stands and
with a determination on either side
not to concede a point that might bene-
fit the opposition, the presuction and
defense carried on an argumentative
and technical warfare throughout the
day, the session closing with honors
slightly in favor of the attorneys for
the indicted men, for they succeeded in
persuading the court to allow the
transcript of the much-wanted testi-
mony marked for Identification, the
initial step toward it's Introduction as
evidence
This almost microscopical measure of
success was gained, however, only
after a. clash between H. H. Appel,
Broadhead's attorney and District At
torney Fredericks, who sat in the wit
ness chair during the entire afternoon.
Have you the testimony of Edwin
I. Earl and Joseph Durand?" was the
first question propounded to the dis
trict attorney. fh
st have the testimony of Edwin T.
Earl, Joseph Durand, William Law
renee Feffer, Paul Blair, John Fohl,
Hector Rabagliatti and myself re-
sponded Mr.. Fredericks.
Seizes Testimony
"Have you the testimony of Walter
DnrlraT PSI w G the rt1acfinn
81 don't think it was written up"
was the reply.
When Attorney Appel asked leave of
the district attorney to use the testi-
mony Mr.. Fredericks replied that ne
would be glad to accommodate him,
'but we maintain 1t is inadmissible and
incompetent"
Mr. Appel picked up the two volumes
lying on the table near the witness
chair and walked to his seat at the
table reserved for the attorneys. Open
ing one of the books, he began a ques-
ton concerning its contents, but before
the query could be completed the dis
trict attorney angrily demanded their
return.
IT permitted you to take the tran
scripts out of courtesy" he said. st
now demand that they, be returned to
the place where you got them," he
said.
"All right" cried Mr.. Appel. IT now
demand an order of the court for this
testimony"
"You are entitled to only that part of
the testimony that pertains to this
case" ruled Judge Davis.
Very well, we offer in evidence the
testimony of Edwin 7. Earl and Joseph
Durand, contained in these transcripts" "
said the attorney.
Court Sustains Ford
But Mr.. Ford was on his feet in
stantly with an objection, which the
court sustained. The documents on
their face, he said, showed that they
were transcripts of testimony in the
case of Nick Oswald, and until the de-
fense could prove that the testimony of
Edwin T. Earl and Durand related to
the subject matter in the charge
against Broadhead and Schenck it was
inadmissible.
But how are we going to prove that
if we cannot see the testimony and are
not allowed, owing to the secrecy
which seems to surround all grand jury
proceedings, to PROFOUND questions to
jurors concerning the testimony of
grand jury witnesses?'' demanded Mr..
Appel.
that grand jurors called as witDesSes
might be asked what witnesses testi-
fed during the investigation directly
leading to the indictments.
But the attorneys for the indicted
men were not satisfied with this linn
itation of the scope of their inquiry
but to no avail, the court ruling that
the testimony indicated by Mr.. Appel
could not be introduced.
Schenck and Ford Argue
Attorney Schenck secured from the
district attorney an admission that he
had dictated the indictment against
Sam Schenck, that he had written the
interlineations to which objection was
taken Thursday, and that he may have
written the names of e. j. Fleming
and Sam Schenck as witnesses at the
foot of the indictments, but that he
was not certain as to this.
Attorney Schenck then recurred to
the testimony of Walter Parker, result
ing In a half hours argument between
Mr. Schenck and Mr. Ford, the latter
again contending that Mr.. Parkers s
testimony was immaterial.
IF this testimony is not material,
then the giving of it to us will do us
no good.' said Attorney Schenck. 'But
khof fe, nf ho - IL