New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-07-13
GOFF DENIES BECKER'S
PLEA FOR NEW TRIAL
Admits Importance Of Ryan's
Story, but Says II Should
Have Been Told Before.
SLAYER'S LAWYER PLEASED
Sure Court of Appeals Will Or.
der Rehearing of Case Rather
than Deny II on a Mere
Technically"

Technically"
Although Justice Cor denied yssters,,
the application Of Charles Becker. m.
former police lieutenant convicted %, IN.
murder OF Herman Rosenthal. Bocka,.
counsel. Joseph \. SHAY declared a.,
he considered a substantial victory t.5
been won for his client on accour, i,
what he termed important concession
I'm the opinion accompanying the dec.s.
ion.
Mrs. Helen L. Becker the conylc,.4
mans wife. at her home. 80 go Ola.
vile avenue, The Bronx said last MIA,
she was more hopeful than oyer that N.
Court ~ Appeals would order a new TIA
FOR her husband
The application was based on newly di,.
covered evidence. misconduct 81 a iurv.
man. and the denial to the defendant .,
the protection guaranteed him by tha
Constitution. n was also contended ths,
new trial IN his case would be- IN N.
furtherance Of justice. Each one OF Ties,
contentious was considered an length b.
Justice cor IN his opinion and each Va,
dismissed as insufficient 10 wsrraa, a
new trial
Ryan's Story Important,
The bulk Of the opinion was taken u,
with a discussion ~ the representation
Of new evidence on which Beckers Law.
yer laid the greatest stress ~ his do.
.mand for a new trial and Il was IN he
of
saw the greatest hope for his ellen,
when the case went before the Court q
Appeals.
The particular point on which he hung
this hope. he said. involved the afds.t
Of Thomas Ryan, that ho saw SAN
Schepps standing on the running board
OF the murder car in which Roser.
that's murderers escaped from the scene
OF the shooting, as the car started on s
flight Ryan WAS not "a witness az The
trial.
~ this statement Is true said Justice
COT In his opinion. "it .s of ,Ea rrs, .m.
portance. Tor IL would mako s.heFps an
accessory 10 the murder and would Do
prive tho prosecution OF a1 important
corroboratlng witness. hut thcr, b. Hots.
iug IN the affidavit ~ Ryan or ~ Becker
10 show Why Ryan was not produced ai
the trial.
There Is nothing % s.ow how d.
PENDANT came to discover "s ness aM
M truol vital evidence There rs a state
mont NJ tho defendant 0' s'n r1' ap".'''
ton. that Viinossos STAYED tHa. 'pr f'ar
harm might com, 'o tHrm and '''1."
Of their reluctance 90 lur.r r".ar.'' DR.
that explanation b. 'oo vague and si'
ora' 10 he sufficient
To authorize an order Pop a 1'F uA
tho Justice ,aid ou tho -.u..N ok h.AF
discovered evidence. 10 WHs- Do" sl'Al
that 70 was such as could pot have ''.a
discovered before tho trial Dog nh" 'A"0'e
~ reasonable diligence
You ss,." said Mr. Shay boz discussing
the opinion. "thr justice practically c'.'
codes Ryau's testimony would probably
change the result f "A n'H mia. we're
granted. hot no. refuses tnr 0.v rA 'a
the technical point that Ue do NOT sa''
Why w. did not produce RyaH an mo pa.
Tho fact Is. We I'D not kn'" ~ pm
until afterward he went oat NJ ioAh
I am confident that when Ue come %
argue this before tho court NJ Api'.'
a will order re.trlal ard lot fury d.
eide the weight ~ Rrar.s 'suho.'
rather than assume practically mo ~
sponshlllty Of hrushinr Do, evidence as.''
bv affirming the Judgment az me i'""
court rs Il now stands
Had Expected a Refusal
Mr.. Shay said that. as far rs the ~
fusal Of Justice Con 10 grant the apPE
ton went. {, was Just as ha had 'NP'e''.,
although the opinion ACCOMPANY 'hs ,
was more favorable 70 hts clients 'A .,,
than bs mad hoped for Re ad DTS e''
aim had been accomplished, anyway ''"
now the court ~ Appeals Hon|1 Raw
consider al Of tho aHid3y's IN slPP'
OF his application. along H'th mo I'-.
Of the trial Itself. and thus Do ""u'' =
the question OF Ryan's evidence o'o''
As 10 the other nov evidence
scented In the application for a nov We,
tho Justice said that in h' o.'"'''.
.i,ror was merely cumulative or ooh''
Jictory. that II was not shown 10 10 ''
terial 10 the issue. or that II was
shown IL could not nave been iouh' !.
fore the trial by the exercise NJ f'aS
able diligence. and Therefore 70 '.' p.
ulal the requirements of Ia" a. '."
Gent grounds 10 authorize the order Oh .
new tIial. ..4,i
As 10 the afHdayts n Whyto'A' 80 !,
and Rooney. whom Mr. SHAY s''.'' :
bring forward a. new witnesses
Con said they contain only noN'l ~ ~.
ated evidence. rather than n'"E ".'''
cred evidence. nj.
As 10 the arguments presented 'l p -
er's counsel ON questions of iaN 10 ,.
that errors had been mad" ana '.l' ~,
new trial should be- granted '"' 80.
said they did not relate 'o the 'N'''' h.,
or non-cxistence ~ material i''',' -.,.
we're simply a for,id oppression '' t.,.
ION" with mo probatiye value WV
ever
rr1ypp ON TWO CENT MbADo