The Washington times., 1929-07-26
CASE BASES
0NlISE Of
DRUGS
tcOntlnued from First Pagel

Continued from FIRST Pagel
painter, who was occupying seat
No. 8.
Questioning Of talesmen was then
resumed.
Asked by international News Ser
vice who had sent the threat to
him. seidel said: !.
sIt was an anonymous postcard
warning me I was doomed. No, !
am not turning It over to the au.
thOrities. ! think the writer was 9
nut"
RelentIesaIy the attorneys Qulzzed
the prospective jurors. Every con.
ceiyahle question was flung at them.
The examination Of one juror was
much like another.
q After he was questioned az length,
Paul q. Packard. former univer-
sity student, wee excused because
he Iiad made up his mind regarding
the guilt or innocence Of Snook.
Lawson Bing, an insurance sales
man, was accepted as . juror Just
ae court was adjourned until l:sO,
this afternoon. Bing took seat NO. .,
making IL seated In the jury box.
Both sides still had peremptory
challenges to exercise at the AFTER
moon session. Also, thirteenth
Juror was to be selected.
When the afternoon session De
fan. Prosecutor John ]. Chester, Jr.,
announced "the State win accept
stiae jury as 1t Is now constituted.
& But the defense was not satisfied
with the jury. Juror No. 10, Mrs.
Albert Brooks, was peremptorily
challenged BY the defense and ex-
animation OF talesnaen was re-:
suned.
Nurse Didn't KNOW
I & IN questioning one Of the tenta.
lively accepted woman Jurors, Miss
Edith Dysinger, . nurse. Seidel
bluntly asked her: do you know
what aphrodisiacs are?" And when
the stout. middle-aged nurse replied
that she did not, the portly attorney
for the defense volunteered the ex.
PLANTATION that they are potions
which are said to stimulate sexual
excitement in human beings"
Efnphasis on the dope angle
was laid BY Seidel In interrogating
jurors. Would they Be prejudiced
against Snook II It developed that
he and his coed paramonr ''had
taken drugs together to determine
the human reaction?'' he asked. Re.
peatedly ne warned the Jurors that
drug stimulation and s.illicit sexual
relataons'' are going to play an Inn.
pprtant part ii this trial.
The Illicit love affair OF DR.. Snoch,
the deposed college professor, and
Miss Xix had stretched over period
of more than three years, Seidel as.
serted. Would the fact that this
may be q mixed jury Of men and
women cause any OF the jurors to be
reluctant about discussing the sor.
did details Of this affair" in the
jury room?
Important Question
@. By Seidel in examining tales.
man who was subsequently peremp-
torily challenged by the Statel-If
the evidence should show that on the
night Of June Is, the defendant here,
ac married man. wife and chilli, scd
Theora Hix, q girl "a or IS years of
age, q student In the medical de.
.partment Of Ohio state University,
IAAclA 40A NAAAN0 ekkk&E % A4SAAA JG1A . pGNAA
very close friends, associated very
intimately, and together maintained
a love nest" q meeting place for
companionship and study and ex-
change Of ideals. had taken an auto
mobile ride and on this ride had
taken it with the specific purpose Of
having intimate relations, and II,
,Gfter the relations, an altercation
took place, the defendant believed
he was in imminent danger Of death
from q gun that, he had previously
given her. which she carried on many
occasions, and that his means of
escape was that Of taking the life
or his assailant. even though he was
mistaken Afterwards Of the inni-
nAnce or the reality Of the danger,
would the injection Of the assertion
,0e self defense or the fact that q
woman was the one who was killed
instead Of d man, influence your de-
ciaion one way or the other?
AL would try to decide 1t on the
evidence.
For complete details of this i
interesting murder trial, which
involves unique psychological
problems, read The Washington
Times every day.
!. . a I