Evening star., 1933-05-30
LOWELL IS SILENT
! ON COURT REBUKE
Supreme Court Criticizes
Crawford Judge for Han
! ding of Drug Case.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
Federal Judge James A. Lowell OF
Massachusetts, rebuked yesterday by the
Supreme Court for his handling OF a
narcotic case. refused comment on the
matter at his home in Boston last
night, according to an Associated Press
dispatch.
The criticism of the court, based on
Judge Lowells charge to a Jury, was
read by Chief Justice Hughes and dlo
not mention by name the Bay state
jurist, who already is under fire In the
House for denying extradition OF George
Crawford, colored, in connection with
the Staying of Mrs. Margaret 1lsley ana
her maid, Miss Anne Buckner, at MID
dleburg, Va.
CHARGED Biased Comment.
In the present case Angelo ,Quercia
of Somerville. Mass, was convicted oi
violating the Harrison narcotic act. He
contended the conviction was obtained
nv Judge Lowell exceeding the bounds
Of fair comment and argued the Judge
had committed an error which entitled
him to a new trial,
Chief Justice Hughes pointed out
Judge Lowell in his instructions to the
Jury had said:
And now am going to tell you what
I think of the defendants testimony.
You have noticed. Mr.. Foreman and
gentlemen, that he wiped his hands
during his testimony.
TT is q rather curious thing, but that
Is almost always an indication OF lying.
why it should be so We don't know, but
that Is a fact
"I think every single word that man
said. except when he agreed with the
Governments testimony, was lie
Emphasizes Importance.
Emphasizing the Importance of in
structions by trial judges to the jury
and the right of such judges to explain
and comment on the evidence, the de-
cision declared, this privilege Of the
Judge to comment on the facts has its
inherent limitations"
Chief Justice Hughes said it was Ito
be exercised in conformity with the
standards governing the judicial office
In commenting upon testimony, he may
not assume the role Of witness"
The chief justice said it was for the
Jury to test the credibility of q witness,
giving his testimony such weight as the
members thought it deserved. He added
CnaI, u0Qer the CIRCUMSTANCES, II WAS
prejudicial to the defendant for the
trial Judge to comment unfavorably
upon his general character
Added 10 Evidence.
'Tn the instant case the trial judge
did not analyze the evidence; he added
to It, and he based his instructions
upon his own addition the decision
declared.
"He did not review the evidence to
assist the jury In reaching the truth,
but In a sweeping denunciation repud1-
ated as a lie all the accused had said
in his behalf which conf1icted with the
statement Of the Governments wit
nesses. This was error and We cannot
doubt 1t was highly prejudiciaL"
In reversing the action OF the First
Circuit Court of Appeals which had
sustained Judge Lowell. the high court
declared His Judge Lowells) char
acterization of the manner and teSti-
mofly of the accused was Of sort most
likely to remain firmly lodged in the
memory of the jury and to excite
prejudice which would preclude fair
and dispassionate consideration Of the
evidence
The House Judiciary Committee is
now investigating the action of Judge
Lowell in ordering the release Of Craw-
ford, the Judge having taken the posi-
ton Crawford would be denied fair
trial In Virginia because Negroes do not
serve on juries there.