Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-12-28
Men Must Appear Monday
to Show Cause Why They
Refused to Talk.
PROSECUTORS OF POLICE
FILE WRITTEN PETITION
Judge Schuldt Makes Ruling After
Formal Citation in Shelby
Kelly Case.

I Ju1 1luSO oLlOW NaCoC NAOAAN0y IA u
lice Court why they should not be di-
rected to testify before the special po-
lice trial board investigating charges of
inefficiency against Police Inspector
william S. Shelby and Lieut.. Edward
j. Kelly.
Judge Gus A. Schuldt this afternoon
ordered that subpoenas be issued re-
quiring Agnew and Davidson to come
into court Monday afternoon at 1880
o'clock after the police trial board,
through Chairman L. E. Atkins and
Acting Police Supt. E. w. Brown, had
presented to the judge in his chambers
formal petition citing the pair for re-
fuSal to give testimony.
The petition, signed by Atkins and
| Brown, was taken to Police Court by the
chairman and the acting police super
| intendent in company with Assistant
! Corporation Counsels Walter l.. Fowler
and Robert E. Lynch, prosecuting the
charges against Shelby and Kelly.
Set for Monday.
After reading the petition, Judge
| Schuldt announced he would order
Agnew and Davidson to appear before
him Monday and reply to the action
| filed by the municipal officials.
The petitions to the court were drawn
| up this morning by Assistant Corpora
ton Counsels Walter L. Fowler and
| Robert E. Lynch, prosecuting the ac-
cuStations against Shelby and Kelly.
The municipal authorities drew up
the petitions at the direction of Judge
| Schuldt, who refused yesterday after
noon to consider the matter unless a
formal citation against Agnew and Da-
| wilson were signed and presented to
| the court. The action today will lay
the foundation for what is expected to
become an important test, not only OF
! the power of the trial board to force
witnesses to testify, but of the right of
grand juror to divulge secret proceed
ings of a grand jury.
AgneW and Davidson were members
d the grand jury which indicted Rob-
ert A. Mcpherson, jr., on a charge Of
numbering his wife, Virginia, and which,
! in a supplemental report, caustically
| criticized the police and the district at
torney's office for their conduct of the
| Mcpherson investigation.
| Petition TO Court.
The petition to the court in Agnews
! case, which was identical with that filed
against Davidson, follows in full:
Comes now the special Police Trial
Board Of the District of Columbia, by
its chairman and the major and super
tntendent OF the metropolitan police
force, and shows unto the court the fol-
lowing facts:
That on December S, 1929, the Com
miSsioners of the District of Columbia
promulgated the following order ap-
pointing trial board to try the charges
against Asst Supt. William S. Shelby
VaA fotNf a Ill,
is here quoted in fulD.
That the chairman of the said trial
board on the 18th day of December,
1929. caused to be issued to one Samuel
P. Agnew a subpoena attested in the
name of the president of the Board of
Commissioners and signed by the chair
| man of the said trial board, and the
said subpoena was personally served on
the said Samuel P. Agnew on the said
10th day Of December, 1929. That the
said subpoena directed the said witness,
| Agnew, to appear before the said police
trial board on the 18th day of Deem
Der, 1929. Said witness appeared before
the said police trial board in response
to the subpoena as aforesaid, and was
called to testify before the said trial
board on December 26, 1929.
Refused to Testify.
THAT said witness subpoenaed as
aforesaid, after being directed by the
chairman of the trial board to be
sworn and to testify, refused to be
sworn and refused to give testimony
before the said trial board.
Wherefore, the premises considered,
| petitioners pray:
Il. That this court cause a sub
poena to be issued to the said Samuel
P. Agnew, commanding him to appear
| before the said court
%. That the court direct and order
the said Samuel p. Agnew to appear
and testify before the Police Trial
Board constituted as aforesaid.
%. And for such other and further
relief as may seem Just and proper"
Judge Schuldt's decision yesterday
afternoon was preceded by a lively
wrangle between the prosecutors and
counsel for Agnew and Davidson. The
| counsel, Harry T. Whelan and Robert
/. Miller, argued that they should have
| an opportunity to answer a formal petit
| ton outlining exactly what their clients
are charged with and under what laws
they are being cited. Prosecutor Lynch
insisted that defense counsel would have
this right after the court had laid the
| oasis for legal argument by ordering
Agnew and Davidson to testify.
Whelan commended that the course
| suggested by the assistant corporation
counsel would involve a judgment of
the issues by the court in advance of
any argument by counsel. Miller OBJ
| Jected vigorously, too. claiming that his
| client, Davidson, had not been legally
served and declaring that Judge Schuldt
would be in contempt of the District
Supreme Court If he ordered grand
juror Ito violate his sacred oath, sworn
to in the higher court"
Judge Schuldt at one time seemed
inclined to grant the request of Lynch
! that preliminary order against the
defendants be issued as legal founda-
| ton for later determination of the
merits OF the case, but on listening to
the heated arguments Of Whelan and
| Miller he decided there should be a
| formal petition filed.
| Petition Is Ordered.
This case may be appealed to other
courts" Judge Schuldt pointed out. 1T
| seems to me there should be a complete
written record of the proceedings in the
case. starting with formal citation
! against these men by the corporation
| counsel.
Important questions are involved
There is involved not only the power of
| the trial board to compel witness to
testify but also the right Of a grand
| juror to disclose what goes on in a
grand jury room. must rule that a
petition be filed" The Judge then
acted in the case of Joseph II Ratt
another grand juror, who failed to an
pear before the board when summoned
! yesterday. The court directed that Batt
be brought before the board on De-
cember 80.
Inspector Brown, acting superinten-
dent of police, informed the court that
Bait had answered the original sum
mons, but was excused until Yesterday
He failed to answer to his name when
| it was called, however.
. The corporation counsel informed the
court that he understood Bait was out