Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-12
ATTORNEY MAKES REPLY.
Leo A. Rover Reviews Charges Made
by Davis.

by Davis.
| A statement by Leo A. Rover, as
| sistant United States Attorney, in
answer to the allegation OF MIR.
| Davis before the committee last night
| follows:
There appears in the public press
| this morning an account Of the tes-
| timony of W. q. Davis, All inmate OF
| the District jail, to the effect that he
was held In Jail nine months after he
| had pleaded guilty to narcotic
| charge without being sentenced: that
| he was thereafter sentenced to two
| years, and that as a result OF his de-
cision to appeal the sentence has not
begun yet, although he has been in
jail 30 months; the charge Is further
made that | assured him that he
would receive a sentence of only 60
| or 80 days. The facts in this matter
are that on July 16. 1925, Davis plead
ed guilty TO a charge Of being Il
dealer in narcotics under indictment
No. 43452. which charged Davis.
Newton H. Smith and Perry Rockelli
Jointly with dealing in and selling
narcotics: several days before Davis
pleaded guilty he sent word to me
through several narcotic agents that
he intended to plead guilty and that
he would he glad to furnish my office
with certain valuable information re-
garding his co-defendants. After
Davis plea was entered I had several
talks with him and with one of his
relatives and told them If Davis would
furnish this Information that when
the time came for imposing sentence
upon him would tell the court that
he had furnished information which
had been helpful to the Government
and that the court undoubtedly would
take this fact into consideration in
fixing the term of the sentence.
Denies Making Promise.
1T no time assured him or any one
else that he would get only 90 or 90
DAYS. shortly after Davis pleaded
guilty the court went into Summer
recess and did not convene again until
October, 1925. then sent for Davis
and found that Information that he
had was of no particular use. to the
Government. although we did intend
to use him as witness in conjunc-
ton with an informer of the Narcotic
Bureau. In the meantime his CO.
defendant, Smith. pleaded guilty. leav-
ing the case pending only as to
Rockelli. The informer who was to
a witness in several other cases and
the trial of the Rodselli case was de-
layed until could get Davis and the
informer in Washington at the same
time, the infor1ner at that time being
out of the city. I saw Davis a number
Of times between date OF his plea OF
guilty and the date of imposition OF
sentence upon him. / explained to
him the necessary delay in the matter
and told him that / did not want him
sentenced until after he had testified
in the Rockelli case and assured him
that when he was sentenced l would
advise the court of the time he had
spent In Jail and that the court, | felt
confident, would take THAI time into
consideration when imposing sentence.
On Davis demand he was brought be-
fore Mr. Justice Stafford, presiding in
Criminal Court No. 2. on March 6,
1926. Upon his plea of guilty Davis
was ON April 3, 1915, sentenced to
Ave, years in the penitentiary in
criminal case No. 30S26, being also
violation of the Harrison narcotic act,
and placed on probation. This proba.
ton was revoked on November 10.
1918, and the sentence of April 8.
1916. ordered into effect.
Analyses Davis Offer Of Aid.
at was understood among Davis,
his relatives and myself that his de.
sire to help the Government was
based on the fact that because OF his
former record he would probably re-
ceived Il sentence Of another five
years, IL 1t were not for the fact of
my advising the court that he had
been of some help to the Government
Therefore, on March 6, 1926, before
tn fo ina
informed him of the length Of time
that Davis had been in Jail. and
also advised him that Davis had been
Of some assistance to the Government
in narcotic matters, and when Mr.
Justice Stafford imposed sentence he
said in open court that because of GER
tain representations made to him he
WAS imposing only sentence of two
years.
1.-THE net result of my treatment to
Davis has been that while ordinarily
he would have been given five years
in the peritentiary he received a SEN
tence of only two years, and, allow
ing for the nine months he spent in
jail, he was saved two years and
three months.
This same charge was made
against me in petition filed by Davis
in habeas corpus No. 1879, and was
denied by me under oath and Davis
petition Of habeas corpus was dis
missed and the writ discharged. The
statement by Davis that his sentence
has not begun to run yet is simply
untrue. The records of the court
show that his sentence of March 6.
1925. was for a period of two years
to run from that date. While he has
appealed the ruling of the court in
| the habeas corpus case. that appeal
has no effect on the running of his
sentence in the criminal case