Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-04-14
Stunned by Disclosures That
Lawyer Was Able to Secure
Freedom of Two Men-De-
hand Investigation.

g Iembers of the indianapolis Bar
ociation are today expressing sur-
Sc and absolute disgust over the
closHres that followed the arrest
c3arles w. Robinson, an attorney,
a charge of obtaining money un-
Ter false pretenses from Harry Par
ons. alleged auto fence"
In justifcatio Of the receipt Of a fee
$1,000 from Parsons and his brother,
ollinson stated publicly that he had
ppeared before the Marion county grand
lrr and conducted a defense" of the
NO Parsons before that body which was
ollowed by the release Of one man and
be return Of faulty indictment against
be other.
Robinson said that he examined wit
esses in the grand jury room with
salph Jones, deputy prosecutor present.
nd did so with the full knowledge and
ensent Of Claris Adams, prosecuting at
rney.
He declared that he did not regard
90 from each client as an exorbitant
e for such services and he denounced
psae charge Of obtaining money under
false pretense as a "frameup."
REPUTABLE LAWYERS
DEMAND INVESTIGATION.
Reputable attorneys of Indianapolis.
who assert that their profession is being
placed in bad repute by such statements
concerning the procedures tolerated by
the criminal court, were today consider
ing methods OF forcing a complete public
investigation Of the Robinson affair.
They say that such proceedings as per
mitting attorneys 10 appear in the grand
jury room in defense of accused men are
wholly illegal and breach Of court
ethics that constitutes a debsuchery Of
the criminal court.
The disclosures which Robinson made
in defense Of himself are regarded as
much more serious than the charges
against Robinson and attorneys say
that they are substantiation of rumOrs
which have been current for some time
as to the manner in which the county
grand jury Investigations have been
conducted.
COURT MADE OUT
OF GRAND JURY.
Ntorneys agree that it is the province
Of tfsAsrand jury to return indictments
in cases where there is reason to believe
the indictment can be sustained. 1t
never has been the theory of Indiana
law that indictments should only be re-
turned when there Is no doubt of the
guilt Of the defendants
The appearance OF attorneys for de-
PENDANTS before the grand jury trans
forms that body into a court, and it Is
acknowledged by every lawyer or stu
dent of law that the grand jury has no
authority to try a case and determine
whether or not defendant is guilty.
It is also argued that II attorneys for
the defendants are permitted to appear
before the grand jury, then attorneys
for the prosecuting Witnesses should be
allowed to appear and II is conceded
that such representation is too prepos-
terous 10 be considered.
The charges Of Parsons tc he effect
that Robinson told him he paid the
money received as 4 fee to officials Of
the city court are viewed in still another
light. No one believes that Robinson
made any such payments to the officials
named. There is a difference Of opinion
as to whether Robinson told that he
did.
In the interest Of the good name Of
the two courts, however, attorneys de-
clare that there should be a complete
invSskfS1tion, not only Of Parsons
ISaeTges, but also of Rollinson's admis-
sions.
Confusion in names led to an error
en- the part Of The Times In its refer
ence yesterday to Herbert Hartman, who
was mentioned By Parsons in the police
court proceedings that resulted in the
arrest Of Robinson. Herbert Hartman
was not the man who was recently be
fore Judge Pritchard on contempt pro
ceedIngs. Fred Hartman, a brother OF
Herbert, was sentenced to jail for con-
tempt following an investigation Of pro-
fessional bonding.