New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-02-15
He and Walter Get Reason
able Doubt Certificates
in Brooklyn Court.
MUST STAY IN JAIL
FEW DAYS LONGER
Justice Blackmar Holds Evidence
Against Curly Joe" Was
Large Circumstantial.

Certificates Of reasonable doubt were
granted Yesterday TO Curly Joe CAS-
sidv. ex-Democrauc boss OF Queens
County. and Louis r. Walter jr, MS
former lieutenant. by Justice Black
mar. I'm the Supreme Court Brooklyn.
Cassidy and Walter were convicted
few DAYS ago of selling Supreme
Court nomination 10 William Nillet''
~ They have been held at the Ray
rord street ial while the justice mas
heon considering their applications
7'he certificates will permit them 10 go
free on bail while they arc Appearing
n the higher courts. Their ban mas
mt vet been set. That will be attended
70 In a few DAYS. when the lawyers ap-
near before Justice Blackmar 10 settle
lie forms of the certificates.
The justice granted the CASSIDY Ger
tificate largely on the ground mat ne
vas convicted on solely circumstanual
evidence. Walter gets his largely be-
cause he was compelled at the trial OF
William Willett. IT.. 10 testify regard
;np a transaction in which he was IN
VOWED. While Justice Blackmar be
beves that there are elements Of doubt
IN both cases that should he passed
upon by the Appellate Division he 10
degree explains his attitude by the iol-
lowing passage from his decision in the
Cassidy case
Dispatch IN criminal business is DC
sirable. and in fact necessary, 10 give
proper effect TO criminal law, but the
right Of appeal is granted by statute
and Judge should not sacrifice the
rights Of a defendant by assuming the
functions Of an appellate court. Many
cases are in the books where a certln-
cate Of reasonable doubt has been de-
MED and prisoner has served out the
u-bole or part of his sentence and
hen the judgment Of conviction mas
been reversed on appeal. To my regret
his happened in a case where denleo
a certificate on my conception OF the
force of cjrcumstantial evidence.
The evidence that Cassidy accepted
hribe is purely circumstantial. There
is no direct evidence that he received
any valuable consideration from Will
lett. or from Walter. His guilt rests
unon differences from circumstances.
In taking up the Walter application
Justice Blackmar explains that Walter
was compelled TO testify by the District
ATTORNEY at the trial Of Willett and
WAS aftervard tried and convicted IN
connection with the same case In spite
Of his claim Of immunity. The District
Attorney insisted he had lost his I'M
munity. for he had voluntarily ap-
reared waived his right Of immunity
End testified on two days at the hear
ings before Justice Scudder in Queens
| County. The decision continues, rails
j ing a nice technical question:
The question is a new one and 1t
seems 10 be involved IN doubt The
underlying principle is that no man
can be compelled TO be witness
against himself. He may therefore
decline TO testify I'm any proceeding
where such testimony may tend TO in
eliminate him. But crimes specified IN
Article "a Of the penal law are so diff
cult Of proof that 1t was deemed wise
10 secure the evidence Of accomplices,
OF guilty persons. at the cost Of giving
them immunity from prosecution.
The person, therefore, committing
such a crime cannot refuse 10 testify
against another. but, II compelled TO
DO so, immunity from prosecution for
the same offence follows. 1t is
said that Walters testimony cat the
recent Willett trial) was limited to the
same subjects regarding which he gave
evidence before Justice Scudder, but
The wording Of such questions and an
Swers could not be watched and ana
lived 10 make sure ne was not putting
himself In added ieODardN.