The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-10-09
DEFENSE AGAIN
ATTACKS PANEL
IN GRAFT CASE
Alleges 25 Reasons Why New
Array of jurors Should Not
Try Gilman
PHELAN OVERRULES
MOTION FOR DELAY
Directs That Affidavits in Sup
port Of Challenge Be Pro-
duced Thursday

A challenge to the second jury list
offered for the trial Of Thomas Gin
nan, alderman, indicted for accepting
bribe. was presented before Judge
Phelan. Wednesday morning. by
james McNamara, chief counsel for
the defense. Judge Phelan ordered
that anidavits supporting the chal
lenge be presented Thursday.
Two months ago Judge Phelan put
an end to the first hearing OF Gilman
by throwing out q jury list OF 500
names because OF allegations made
against the jury commission by the
defense. The commissioners were &C.
cused Of prejudice against Gilman
and the court held that whether
prejudiced or not they had not made
the list In q strictly legal way.
An order was filed. Aug. Is, direct
ing the commission to draw 400 new
names. The defense now alleges that
the same faults found in the nrst ar
ray. and few more. can be found In
the second. and It dso should be
thrown out Of court.
twenty-five reasons are given by
Ghnnan's attorneys in support OF their
challenge, most OF them being founded
on allegations similar to those made
in the first hearing Summarized
briefly the reasons are
/. Four Of the jury commissioners.
Thomas May. NJ. Gore Van Antwerp,
Pontius c. Wood and Duncan K.
Graham, are prejudiced against Gin.
nan.
2. The same four jury commission
ers have helped the prosecuting attor-
ney In trying TO secure q conviction.
3. They have voluntarily made am.
davits to help secure q change OF
venue.
4. They were given advice by the
prosecuting attorney.
s. Names In the array were select
ed by cooperation between commits
sioners and prosecutor.
s. They purposely selected men for
jury service who would make certain
Glinnan's conviction.
Z. Names In the array we're not
selected according to the law.
s. The present panel was not
selected from the array legally.
9. The jury list contains names OF
men who have publicly denounced
Gilman. or are friends Of Hugh Shep-
herd.
10. Tom May, secretary Of the com
mission has expressed by carSoon his
belief In the prisoners guilt.
II. Many Of the Jurors on the prce'
emit panel are the same as those on
the array which was challenged and
thrown out by the court in the flrst
hearing.
IT, saloonkeepers. politicians and
neighbors of the defendant have been
excluded.
1914. This exclusion was an arbi-
trary action.
Is. Names have been used on sug-
gestion from the secretary of the
Board of Commerce.
Is. Boundaries Of the districts
used for selecting jurors we're
changed at Shepherds instigation.
IL. The court erred In the form
and substance of the order which d.
rected the commission to draw a new
array.
1924. The jury commission erred
In carrying out the order OF the
court for q new array.
Is. The present panel is not legal
Before Offering his challenge to
the array. Mr.. Mcnamara offered a
motion for q continuance to the De-
cember term, which was Immediately
overruled by Judge Phelan.
He based this request upon the alb
sence Of Fred Irland and Milton w.
Blumenberg, material witnesses. Nc
Namara has been trying since the
case was FIRST set. to bring these two
men to Detroit TO testify. They are
supposed to know vital facts con-
corning the methods Of Detective w.
J. Burns and his operatives, and the
defense alleges that their evidence
would be sufncient to clear Gilman.
Mcnamara read afYidavits, a. he
has on previous occasions, to show
that Irland and other witnesses can
swear that James z. Sheridan, the
Burns operative, who took dicto-
graphic conversations to be used
against Gilman, has been guilty of
perjury. They are also ready to