Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-11-04
CIVILIAN BOARD
IS DENIED DOYLE
Commissioners Action Is
Same as That Taken in
Case of Allen.
Continued From First Page)

Continued From First Page)
pioye Of the United States Govern
ment, and respectfully request that the
personnel Of the said board may be
selected from among the substantial
business and professional men Of the
City of Washington"
The letter bore the signatures OF both
Fowler and Wampler.
Reserve Rights to Challenge.
In denying Doyle's plea for q special
board, the Commissioners also took
cognizance of the threats Of his counsel
as well as H. Ralph Burton and Tench
T. Marye, counsel for Allen, to challenge
the right OF members of the Police De-
partment to try their respective clients.
The Commissioners specifically pointed
out that members of the regularly con-
stituted Police Trial Board may be
challenged for reasonable cause" but
that the trial board itself has the power
to pass upon the sufilciency of the rea-
son.
Doyle'S attorneys last week served
notice on Inspector Louis j. Stoll, chair
man of the trial board, that they eX-
pected to challenge all members Of the
department who may be designated to
sit on their clients board, and Aliens
counsel did substantially the same thing
yesterday by formally demanding the
right TO examine members of the trial
board on their fitness to serve in the
trial OF the policeman. In support Of
their demand the lawyers cited a court
opinion which held that the defendant
shall have access to the list of jurors,
hnf hn1 fAA 60
him face TO face for challenge jurors
ascertained to be legally qualified"
The letter which Aliens lawyers
wrote to Inspector Stoll, follows:
las provided by section 81, chapter
II, OF the Manual of the Metropolitan
Police Department, we hereby give 48
hours notice that, as attorneys for and
in behalf of Robert J. Allen, we demand
that each member Of the Police Trial
Board shall submit to an examination
on his vOir dire. 1t is to be understood
that this notice to you shall not be con-
strued as a waiver of the right to object
to the decision of the Commissioners of
the District Of Columbia as to the mem
bership Of the trial board.
Jurors as Well as Judges.
1T will be our pleasure to meet your
convenience and that of the board with
TeIcEenCc 70 IAlc ICQuCoI HcKcDH IlduC
at any time you desire, either before the
board cOnVeneS or the day of trial. Our
purpose in giving this ample notice Is to
eliminate any possibility whatever OF a
technical objection being made upon the
ground that the provisions of the said
manual have not been complied with
fully. In support of this request, we
submit that by the very inclusion in the
police manual Of section 81, chapter II,
providing for challenge to members of
the trial board, it was obviously admit
ted by the Commissioners that MEM
beers of the trial board were jurors as
we'll as Judges, and, that being the case
beyond peradventure or doubt they are,
therefore subject to rules, regulations
and decisions affecting jurors.
I'm the case of Tierney VS.. the Unit
ed states. $50 Federal 1922 &C. C. A,
4th. 1927, it was stated that the es-
sentials of the free exercise OF right OF
challenge are: First, that the defend
ant shall have access to the list OF
Jurors, and, second, that he shall have
presented to him face TO face for chal-
ienge Jurors ascertained TO be legally
qualified"
cit therefore follows that members
OF the trial board are subject to ex-
animation upon their voir dire, for
otherwise it would be manifestly i'm
possible for the person charged to know
whether or not they were properly
malified to act as jurors in the partic-
ular case, and whether our client Is to
be tried before a board OF police ON
| cials or civilians we desire that Oul
| position be known and of record in
ample time