San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-02-17
ANDREWS WINS
VI 7 Al POIN 7
: IN HIS TRIAL
Court Martial Cannot Hear
Evidence Submitted in
Federal Court.
CASE TO CONTINUE
Prosecution Fears All Tes.
timony May Be Barred
as Result Of Ruling.

Virtual acquittal on one count for
First Lieut.. Leland S. Andrews, sir
Seryice, being tried dt Fort Sam Hons
lon before a court-martial for con.
duct unbecoming an Officer and a gen.
lleman, was won by his defense dur
ing Friday afternoons hearing, when
First Lieut.. Park Holland, air SER
gice, special counsel for the defense,
after vigorous efforts, obtained from
the court a ruling to the effect that
The accused has once been arraigned,
convicted and punished for violation
of the national prohibition act, and
ahat evidence sub Iitted in that trial
cannot be admitted in the present one.
The ruling was made following spe-
sial plea by Lieutenant Holland that
lhe defendant, if this evidence were
10 be admitted, would twice be placed
In jeopardy for the same offense.
Col. Beaumont b. Buck, president
and law member of the court, first
ruIed in favor of the prosecution, but
an objection was voiced by Col Pierce
A. Murphy. I9.e court than went
into closed session, and after approx
imatels so minutes of discussion open
ed its doors and anpouneed' the final
~ etsgion in favor OF the defense. The
euling was with reference TO speci-
feation one of charge one. which sets
forth the violation of the national pro-
bibition act by the defendant.
Order Trial TO Proceed.
Cant. Humphrey Biddle. trial judge
\ advocate, following the court: deci-
sion on the jeopardy plea. asked that
the. trial be stopped and the case sub
mitted to Interviewing authority, Maj.
| Gen. +. NJ. Lewis, commander of the
] Eighth Corps Area, for ruling. but
/ The Court again ruled in favor of the
Y defense aud ordered the trial to pro-
| reed without being placed before the
commanding general of the corps area.
u Captain Biddle argued it was I'M
necessary to proceed with the trial
I~fAntil General Lewis had either ap-
4 proved or reversed the decision OF
The court on specification one of
\ charge one, as that charge. he saId,
! Is the basis for all the other charges.
] MAY Bar All Testimony.
az doubt very seriously" the trial
\ Sudge advocate said. "if any testi-
mony can be introduced TO sustain
\ the ether charges against the defend
4, mt IL the testimony supporting the
] violation Of the national prohibition
Il net is not admitted, and / do not
a see any necessity in proceeding with
the trial until the reviewing author
!. ity either approves or reverses the
y ruling of the court
; Lieutenant Holland. in reply. said
a that the defense had no assurance
that no testimony could be introduced
Z to support the other charges, and
: asked that the trial be continued
~ without interruption. The court
tuled in his favor.
On November IA, Lieutenant An
larews pleaded guilty 10 violation of
the prohibition act in the United
~ Estates district court at Laredo. and
paid fine of $500. The charges
] against him in the present trial are
,lhnder the ninety-fifth and ninety
l,.stth articles of war. charging that
We illegally possessed and transported
Pbiquor, conspired with one Earl T..
prE Evans TO haul liquor. made false
lS0fficial statement with intent to de
niceive his superior officer. and used
In government airplane for his private
Muse.
~ Many Cases Are Cited.
~. Lengthy arguments were engaged in
Ny counsel for defense and prosecution
Y before the court ruled on the jeopardy
aplea. Lieutenant Holland. for the
tetIefense, chung to his contention that
inf the evidence submitted at the La
ndredo trial is admitted at the pres
{ GENT trial in support of specification
'lbne of charge one. that the defendant
twice be placed in ieOpardy for
: he same offense. He cited case after
nHaase in support of his contention
tSStress was laid on the ruling in Win.
. throp's Military Law which provides
N hat where the same evidence is neces-
TFary to- prove separate charges. al.
although they may be described diff
/ Ferently, the charges constitute the
-rEame crime and one cannot twice he
for it in either civil or military
fourts. He also cited the decision Of
me United States Supreme Court in
WI. S. VS.. Grafton. The case was just
- he reverse of the Andrews case. an
. I officer first being tried by military
daeourt and later bv a United States
isstivil court The Supreme Court de
% Isision in this case was handed down
nv IN 1907 in favor of the defendant.
Claims Conduct Is the Issue.
! Both Captain Biddle. and Lieut.
nj Cas-. assistant trisI judge advo
S;tisl& argued against the contention
ss.bf the defense counsel. Captain Bid
ISL fC,.-.....Ir -. - -n,oN