Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-24
BRUTALITY JURY
REPORTS DEADLOCK;
SENT BACK BY JUDGE
Continued From First Page }

Continued From First Page)
room also decided to go to supper, and
attorneys for the defense said they
would not return until 8 o'clock
Meanwhile the jury continued to de-
bate its findings. Finally, when it APP
peared at 10 o'clock the jurors were
hopelessly deadlocked for the evening,
the court ordered the group taken under
guard to the Continental Hotel to be
locked up for the night.
Final arguments by opposing corrAel
and the charge by Justice Proctor con-
sumed most of the time yesterday
afternoon. Before final arguments were
begun the defense was permitted to read
TO the jury names of seven character
witnesses whose testimony in behalf OF
Mostyn wes dispensed with by stipu-
lation between counsel in order to save
time The witnesses who were ready TO
testify to Mostyn's good character were
l. Semster. Inspector F. S. w. Burke,
A. d. Loffler, James r. Lake, William S.
Hatton, John S. Soper and Edwin B.
Hesse former police superintendent.
Rover Demands Guilty Verdict.
Rover opened and closed the ad-
dresses to the jury. In his opening
plea, he declared the case presented
"sordid" picture of "a mere boy at
the mercy OF merciless policemen" and
he demanded the defendants be found
guilty on both counts Of the indict-
ment
The prosecutors arguments were
answered by James A. OShea, attorney
for Mostyn, Latin and Grooms. and by
Frank j. Kelly, attorney for Burroughs
O'Shea made vigorous defense for his
clients, characterizing the defendants
as efficient officers Of the law, who had
trapped a confessed thief" He de-
clared Harker had lied about the beat
Ing just as he had lied about other
things" Kelly said the status OF Bur
roughs was different from that of the
other defendants. in that Burroughs
merely had arrested Harker and inyes-
tigated him
Rover closed the arguments with a
final plea that the jury convict all
four defendants.
In his charge to the jury Justice
Proctor gave the usual instructions
about presumption of innocence" for
the accused and giving the defendants
the benefit OF a reasonable doubt"
Cites Constitutional Right.
He said the issue in the case was not
whether Harker had committed the rob-
berry for which he was being questioned
by the officers. but whether the defend
ants had administered a beating to the
prisoner. Harker's possible guilt of the
robbery charge, he said. would not have
justified q beating to make him con-
TESS, as Harker had a constitutional
right to remain mute.
On the other hand. the court ex-
planned Harker's possible culpablity in
the robbery and his previous criminal
record could be considered by the Jury
in weighing his credibility as a witness
against the accused and in determining
any motive he might have had in testi-
flying against the police.
He instructed the jury 10 find out
first whether Harker was beaten with
a rubber hose in the hand OF Mostyn
whether the rubber hose as used was a
dangerous weapon" and whether Laf-
lin, Grooms and Burroughs or any one
of them aided and abetted in the beat
ing.
II il were found MoStyn beat the
prisoner with hose and the iurv be-
lieved the hose to be a dangerous weap-
on. then Mostyn should be found guilty
of feloniouS assault, the court said. The
possible cor,nivance of the other three
officers then must be weighed he point
ed Que.
Justice Proctor said if the iurv
thought the hose was not a dangerous
weapon. conviction on a charge of
simple assault would be possible.