The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-08-27
prnindice. Moi Evidence

mn 4uior +bot made it possible for Billings and
Droo,ou - he convicted of crime they did not
commit has been exhibited before the California Su
preme court.
n is the same thing that has kept Billings ana
Mooney in prison for fourteen years.
1t is the theory that the end Justtles the means
that men who are considered dangerous 10 SoceUS
oupht to be put out of the on general prcipeS'
that so long as such men are put OUT OF te "aS' ~
matters not at all how questionable the evidence may
have been upon which they were found guilty OF
specific crime.
Never has this theory subversive as 1t Is OF the
fundamental principles of American justice, been ex-
entitled more clearly than it was in the testimony
If Two former assistant district attorneys EDWARD a.
Cunha and James F. Brennan.
cunha prosecuted and convicted Mooney on muir
der charge after the Preparedness day bombing Oh
1916 Brennan prosecuted and convicted Billings Ihey
apueared before the supreme court to explain and oe
fend their connection with the cases:
Said Cunha:
"T wasn't worried about the direct evidence. was
satisfied that Mooney should be convicted on MS acVlV
itias alone he is not entitled to pardon. base
that statement on his activities leading up 10 the
preparedness day parade; the bringing III OF all the
anarchists that could be assembled, on the appeals
that were made to stop the parade even by the use
of violence at IIdb ClillS NaS o0OA0440A W 0
Mooney hang on that theory"
Said Brennan:
I'VE were compelled to rely on our knowledge OF
outside circumstances proof of which we we're not
allowed tn introduce in court rather than on the d.
rect testimony of witnesses. If there was anything
wrong with any witness we had to assume that cross
examination by attorneys for the defense would bring
that out Naturally we treated our witnesses as
well as possible so that they wouldn't back out
on US"
Mark The significance of those statements. The
two prosecutors had information, not properly ad-
rssible as evidence before jury, that Mooney ana
Billings were dangerous men. Such men, tney
reasoned ought to be hanged or imprisoned Tor hIe
If that end could be attained the weakness OF the
direct evidence didn't matter If a witness perjured
himself on the stand, let the defense attorneys detect
and expose the perjury. Cunha and Brennan we're
determined to obtain convictions and to obtain con-
victions they employed the tools that seemed most
useful.
And the tools came conveniently to hand-the
liar John Macdonald the liar Frank Oxman the liar
Estelle Smith the liars Nellie and Sadie Edeau.
The Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of California guarantee every person ac-
cused of crime fair trial for that crime Billings
and Mooney did not have fair trial for the crime
of which they were accused.
This constitutional guarantee Is more important
than any individual. Its violation must not go IN
challenged and uncorrected, though the victims
of that violation are bad men.
If bad men, convicted by perjured testimony OF a
crime they did not commit because they or their So
cal and political beliefs were repugnant to prosecut-
ing officers can be kept in prison, then no citizen
is safe.
For by the same token, good men whose persons
or beliefs are repugnant to prosecuting officers also
may be railroaded to prison and left there to rot