Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-04-15
GRAND JURORS
ASK PROBE OF
THEIR CONDUCT
Petition Judge to Cite Man
aging Editor of The
Times.
ADAMS GIVEN ORDER


by petitioning Judge James A Col
Inns to cite for contempt the man
aging editor of the Indiana Daily
Times and Mr.. Robinson.
In accordance with the petition to the
court Judge Collins entered an order
directing Prosecutor Claris Adams, VINO
had charge OF the grand jury when the
Robinson incident took place and had
personal charge Of it when the petition
was prepared, to file in the criminal
court 4 proper specification OF contempt
against the parties named in the peti-
ton.
The petition of the grand jury sets
out the article which was printed in
The Times under the heading ITO the
INDIANAPOLIS Bar Association calling
on the members of the bar association
to demand Of Judge Collins an investiga-
ton of the story told by Mr.. Robinson
concerning the incident before the
grand jury.
WHAT PETITION
SETS FORTH.
The petition then purports to set. out
the facts in this matter follows:
'One Charles ". Robinson. a practic-
ing attorney at this bar, represented TO
the prosecuting attorney before this in
vestigation began that he was employed
BY the defendant Harry Parsons, who had
beer bound over to the grand jury by
the Judge of the city court upon
charge of receiving stolen goods consist
ing of the purchase Of automobiles stolen
by a notorious band of automobile
thieves, all Of whom have been convicted
of their part in the transaction. The said
Robinson represented to the prosecuting
attorney that the only evidence tending
to connect his client with this gang Of
automobile thieves was a confession
taken from Parsons by members OF the
Indianapolis police department and that
said confession was false and untrue in
every particular. He represented that 1t
had been obtained from the defendant,
. Parsons, through the advice Of a lawyer,
salch he had first employed said law
ye- advising him that it would go easier
for him II he should sign a confession,
though untrue, and get of as light as
he could because all the other men who
were caught were going to try to lay
part Of the blame upon him. He fur
ther said that there was force and
violence used in obtaining this confes-
sion from Parsons. He. therefore, upon
these representations, solicited the priv
ilege of having the defendant, Parsons.
and his brother, who was also bound
ever to the grand jurY for investigation,
appear before that body and tell them
Just how this confession had been OBJ
tained from him. Rollinsen TepEasented
that his client was not guilty as hereto
fore said and that the only evidence
against him was the confession; that he,
Parsons. could, he felt sure. convince the
grand jury that such confession was OBJ
tanned from him, Parsons, by fraud and
duress and that II was not just for the
grand jury to indict him solely upon
the confession obtained without there he
ing presented to the grand jury the al
legged facts of the fraud and duress in
obtaining such confession. The prosecut-
ing attorney thereupon told the said
Robinson that II the grand jury con-
sented. be would make no objection TO
the said defendant appearing and telling
zse alleged facts to the grand jury in
crdcf that its members might consider
that phase Of the case in passing upon
the question Of whether or not the said
Parsons should he indicted He then re-
ferred him to the grand jury deputy,
Ralph Jones, to whom ROllinson made
the same request and upon the request
being presented TO the grand jury,
through Mr.. Jones. it was agreed that
defendant might appear and make any
statement relative 10 the obtaining Of
the confession which was being used as
evidence against him, he first being
warned however, that anything which
he would say might be used against
him This was the only knowledge that
the prosecuting attorney had of the pro
cedure in this case and Charles W. RoI-
linson did no.. either with his knowledge
or consent appear as an attorney or
otherwise before the grand jury.
ADMIT LAWYER WAS
BEFORE GRAND JURY.
''That Charles ". Robinson did not
appear and conduct a defense of this
ease before the grand jury OF Marion
county set out in this false, Hbelous,
defamatory and cOntemptuOus statement,
but the facts concerning his alleged ap-
pearance before the grand jury are as
follows: All the witnesses for the state
in the Parsons case had been heard when
the defendants, Harry and Ben Parsons,
appeared in the grand jury room in ac-
cordance with their lawyers request to
testify in their own behalf All the
other witnesses who had been called
FOR that morning had testified and there
was no other business before the grand
jury on that morning. When Harry
Parsons was called he was sworn snA
warned OF his constitutional rights in
which ne said might be used against
him. At this juncture his lawyer,
Charles W. Robinson, who had come
With him to the anteroom Of the grand
jury, opened the door, called the deP-
>@ty prosecutor, Mr.. Jones. and asked
him to ask certain questions Of this
defendant Mt. Jones then said IF you
want these questions asked, ask them
yourself He then turned to the wit
ness and said: Harry, tell your story
This Mr.. Parsons did. That is the only
thing that was said by Mr.. Robinson
about the defendant, Harry Parsons. He
then returned with Ben Parsons ana
told him in substance to tell his part
Of the story and said he had been over
seas and told him to tell about being
the support Of mis- mother Mr. Rollin-
son did not in any sense conduct a de
fense in the grand jury room. He was
not present when the evidence was pro-
duced against either of these men and
in no sense conducued a trial held In
the grand fury room. The permitting of
Mr.. Robinson, even under these circum-
stances, TO come into the grand jury room
WAS a mistake. for which there is no
excuse and should not have been per-
mitted. It was in the first two weeks
of the term of this grand jury and they
were not sufficiently familiar with the
grand jury procedure at that time to
ESSlize the gravity thereof This was
s>permitted by the deputy prosecutor BE-
rause the business Of that morning had
been concluded. and he did not consider
the statements to be made by Harry and
Ben Parsons as a part Of the investl-
cation by the grand jury, but only as
a privilege for the Parsons to present
sTt14- r-fn- -.