Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-03-09

Is LOS ANGELES, Cal, March S.-Clar-
ence IS. Darrow's second trial on Jury
bribery. charge ended today in a disagree
ment of the Jury. Blight Jurors were for
conviction; four held out for acquittal.
Darrow Immediately demanded a new
trial, and District Attorney John D.
Fredericks said he would have one.
Judge w. NJ. Conley of MADEIRA county.
who presided, set March 81 as the date
for the beginning of the retrial.
The failure of the Jury to agree was
received with varied emotions by de-
Tense and prosecution. barrow himself.
nervous under < the strain of waiting
thirty -eight and a half hours for the jury
to report, seemed to regard the disagree
ment as a relief. He-even smiled when
making brief arguments in favor of his
demand for a new trial. He met reports
that the prosecution might not press the
would not rest content with freedom. his
character smirched by the mot proved
nature Of the result today.
Prosecution 1s Disappointed.
The prosecution, admittedly, was dis
appointed. w. ]. Ford. assistant district
attorney, declared he would not partici-
pate in a retr1al OF the case, as he felt
that a conviction was impossible after
the failure In the trial just closed.
incidentally. Ford made known his in
tention to resign, but said this decision
was not due to the outcome Of the OAR
row trial.
grasped his hands. sympathized with him
over his failure to obtain an acQuittal
and expressed the belief that his THIRD
trial would end as he desired.
Trial Took Forty-Eight Days.
| Darrow's second trial occupied forty
eight days-a little more than half the
time consumed by the first. which ended
in an acquittal after the jurors had de-
liberated thirty-three minutes.
In both cases the allegations were SUBJ
stantially the same, except that in the
one George N. Lockwood, q prospective
Juror. was alleged to have been bribed,
and in the second Robert Balm. q sworn
Juror In the McNamara case, was the
recipient OF money paid by Bert IL;
that he was acting under the direction of
barrow.
Prevented Own AcquittaI.
Darrow's own arguments were respon-
sible for his failure to 30 free, according
to one Of the jurors. who asked that his
name be withheld.
Darrow's declaration that, although the
bomb which destroyed the Los Angeles
Times building had killed twenty men,
the McNamara brothers were not muir
derers, but workers in a great cause
q q GO n <hA {sv~A r.. II
tDarrow's. associate counsel averred the
same belief.
In commenting further on the case Dis.
trict Attorney Fredericks recommended
that the Los Angeles Bar Association
take action to have Darrow dfsbarred
| because Of testimony he gave. The prose.
cutor referred to Darrow's admission that
he had paid money to~Guy Biddinger. a
Chicago detective, working for the prose.
cution.
Twelve Ballots Are Taken.
Twelve ballots were taken, and the best
Darrow had any time was six jurors
That was early in the balloting, and In
short time two were won over by those
who desired conviction. The jury neye,
at any time stood eleven for conviction
and one for acQuittal Foreman PettinRill
whose request for instructions when thu
jury first reported shortly after II
o'clock was construed to that effect SAID
he meant mo such thing" Eight to foul
| was the nearest the jury ever came to 3
decision, he said,
barrow was bonded at SO, 900 under tn.
Balm Indictment He will remain at lib
erty under the bond pending flaal DISPOSE
ton Of the case.
| Seek to Recall Fredericka.
| A. ]. Mooney. secretary Of the Los
Angeles Building Trades Council, an.
nounced tonight plans were being Der.
fected to attempt the recall OF Distric,
Attorney John d. Fredericks. because Of
his attitude toward union labor ane
Clarence g. barrow. Mooney said tn,
Los Angeles County Central Labor Coun,
Gil was cooperating with his own or.