The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1935-12-13

jurice from the evidence. contend
ing that only two sections men
toned in the Indictment should be |
submitted to the jury. Francis Z,
Murphy, attorney for the defense
argued that all of the affidavit
should be before the jury, assert
ing that the jury-men should
"have the whole picture" and that
the sections which Lanier sought
to exclude bore directly on the
question of whether the defend
ants ''believed the statements to
be true"
Murphy declared that the re-
naming 10 sections of the affi-
davit "must be true, because they
are not denied in the Indictment
we've got to assume this because
of failure to indict on the other
paragraphs" (Only two sections
Of the affidavit were cited by the
prosecution in it's indictments for
perjury
Lanier's attempt to exclude the
remaining sections was blocked
when Judge Wyman ruled that all
! of the affidavit coulde be sub
mitted to the jury-two sections
by the prosecution and the re-
naming 10 sections by the de-
tense.
Outlines Legal Phases
The court, in outlining the legal
! phases of the case, also stated
that under the law the prosecu-
ton must show not only that the
statements made in the affidavit
were false but also chat the de-
t PENDANTS believed them false
: when the allegations were SCI
: forth, or the governments case
: fails"
: First witness called by Lanie
: was Howard Strack, chief deput!
IS u. S, marshal, and the second wit
5, ness was Frank S. Talcott, deput!
,e u. S. clerk of court. Both testl
l. fled merely as to their presence il
e the. courtroom in May 1884 whel
1t Judge Miller was alleged in tn
le affidavit to have made a preJu
n dicial speech to the jury panel an
Y were asked to recall other incl
'r dents of the first trial.
Next put on the stand by Lar
Ter was E. E. Makiesky of Ne
York City, former head of tn
~ Associated Press bureau in Mort
" Dakota.
y Lanier Rebuffed
IT II was at this point in the tri'
~ that Lanier suffered anothe
crushing defeat as he sought
IN batter down defense objections al
til failed. Twelve times, Lanler
US questions attempted to draw fro
tai Makiesky his recollection of JUDI
he Miller's talk to the jury panel
err at the first trial. Twelve time
Murphy objected that the que
,on tions were improper and not wit
io- in the issues as defined in the J
- dictrnent. and twelve times Jud
- Wyman upheld the opJectlons.
:. Twice the jury and the wltnt
| were excused from the court roc
| as attorneys presented argumel
| to Judge Wyman on the admls
/ bility of evidence.
| Answers One Question
/ During Mahesky's second
. pearance ON the stand, he was
Of lowed to answer but one quest
put by Lanier-whether ne Z
ton heard Judge Miller's entire ia
int 70 the iury. The newspaperm
nan replied that he did. To doi
ar otha,- Questions bv the district
too tornev. the defense counsel
n | iected and in each instance,
.ept objection was sustained DIV 'u'
aid, 4 transcript of the proceedi
lost during Makiesky's second appe
ont ance on the stand follows:
oeo- LANIER: Did Judge Miller
var, the course of that talk say any
,ove PENDANTS was a Communist?
heir MURPHY: That is objected
war as incompetent: not within
sted issues. there being no such 81
hey ment contained in the affaldlvi
ton | prejudice. r...;uo5
sol Objection Sustained
cred THE COURT: Sustained.
So TANIER: Did Judge Mile
rich the course of that talk say an
still these defendants were public
Tres n;esq
MURPHY: Same objection,
put the same reason.
atue, THE COURT: Sustained.
ruth, TANTER. Was there anyt
the in that talk, Mr.. Madesly, v
CONTINUED on page four)