The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-03-20
Leopold Makes His
Last Desperate Fight
tContinued from Page u


CONTINUED
ing, among them the convicted
mans wife, Mrs Ida Leopold, and
his Oldest son.
Attorney Fitzgerald, in giving
the states case, said 1.-THE sole
complaint of the petitioner is that
he was not hanged" He claimed
that the court had no Jurisdiction
in the case and argued for a. dis
missal of the petition.
Attorney Solomon claimed that
the U. S. district court did have
jurisdiction and received Judge
Hincks' permission to prepare ci-
tations to that effect. One of the
examples he mentioned was the
case of Nicky Arnstein, notorious
racketeer.
His First Appearance
Leopold's appearance at the
hearing was the first one he has
made outside the prison since his
conviction in superior court here
in 1928. A little stouter than he
was then. and with gray streaks
showing in his hair, he greeted his
wife and son affectionately. He
gave a friendly greeting to Water
bury newspapermen, whom he re-
membered from the time of his
trial.
Dressed in a black suit, with
white shirt and tie, he was quite
He chatted in
friendly fashion before entering
the court house in company with
a parole officer from the state pris-
on, and said that he was work.
ing in the broom factory at Weth-
ersfield. Baron Torkomian, figure
in another sensational Waterbury
trial, Is one of his fellow workers.
His Conviction
Leopold was convicted in SUPER
Tor court here in the fall of 1928
for causing a fire which in Febru-
airy of that year claimed the lives
Of John and Thomas Moynihan of
Baldwin street, two boys, and an
alleged fire-bug, Samuel Weiss. He
was sentenced to life imprisonment
BY Judge Carl Foster and all eff
1orts OF mis- since that time to re-
gain his freedom have been
Attorney Solomon opened the
nearing with a review of the trial
winch resulted in his clients con-
He claimed that the fifth
and fourteenth amendments to the
constitution of the United States
mad been violated in that Leopold
was placed in double jeopardy and
was sentenced without due process
Of law.
Most of his argument was based
On the charge that the Judge had
40 right to send the jury back into
session after it had found Leopold
guilty of murder in the first de-
gree. He pointed out, reading from
superior court records, that the
Jury had been asked to reconsider
It's verdict after a conference be-
tween the judge and States Attor-
ney Lawrence l.. Lewis. The Jury.
ne claimed, should have been re-
sworn.
He emphasized the jury admitted
misunderstanding and that con-
gened again, without any records of
The case or without any transcripts
of evidence. Attorney Solomon held
hat the judges allowing of the
Jury to reconsider placed his client
N double jeopardy in violation of
Inc constitution and that the Sec
ond verdict was given without due
process Of law.
Judge Interrupts
Judge Hincks interrupted at this
line to ask If he did not know that
he supreme court of errors had
found no errors in the trial. Attor-
ney Solomon then asked If the
court had gone, far enough into
he case.
Opening the states objection to
granting the petition, the assistant
states attorney, William B. Fitz-
gerald, held that the U. S. district
court had no jurisdiction in the
Ease. He pointed out that it was not
/ writ Of error, and that Leopold
had received a long, fair trial, had
been defended by able and exper-
enced counsel and had had his case
'eviewed by the supreme court of
he state.
ION this procedure, he said,
the U. S. district court has no
to determine the regu->
arity of proceedings of the state
court on the occasion of the trial.
rhe sole questions that can be re-
here are, first, whether the
superior court had jurisdiction on
he person of Leopold, and, Sec
ond, whether the sentence imposed
was one which it had power to i'm
pose."
Cited Some Cases
He cited cases which he said in
volved similar claims of double
Jeopardy and said that the Judge
and states attorney were only
merciful when the jury was asked
10 reconsider its first verdict, He
hen commented that the petition
sr's sole complaint was that he had
not been hanged.
Attorney Solomon, in reviewing
he superior court records of the
rial in 1928, recalled Leopold's
Try while awaiting final decision,
If I'm guilty let them hang me;
f not, let me go home"
Lost Jurisdiction
Leopold's attorney contended
hat with the giving of the first
verdict, the superior court lost all