Evening star., 1935-05-03

| had stated that I was not familiar
| with the method of doing business
especially" when was interrupted
by the committee counsel and was not
| permitted to finish my sentence.
had in mind stating that ! was not
familiar with Police Court practice, as
indeed am not, but am thoroughly
familiar land the record does not sup
port the contrary with the Police
Court activities of my own ofiice. This
familiarity Is obtained by constant
daily contact by telephone and con-
ference in my ofice with my assist
ants assigned to the Police Court. I
am being condemned for not partici-
pating In misdemeanor cases in the
Police Court, when as a matter Of fact
1t has never been the practice, nor
indeed is it necessary, for the District
attorney to participate in such mat
ters, but simply to exercise supervi-
sion over them. It will be readily
recognized that more important ques-
tions of this Office would suffer If the
District attorney himself attempted to
try misdemeanors in the Police Court.
The assertion that I do not know how
long jurors serve (Par. FL; P. 26).
Upon reading the record it will be
observed that am Of course familiar |
with the terms of service of petit |
jurors and grand Jurors "a the Dis
trict of Columbia. As heretofore |
stated, I do not claim to be familiar |
with every detail of the Police Court |
practice. among which is the term Of |
service of jurors there. This in no |
way substantiates the general charge |
that I do not know how long jurors
serve.
The assertion that I do not know
whether or not defendants have the
right TO testify at preliminary hear
ings in the Police Court tPar. 22;
p. 26).
This Is another matter concerning |
Police Court details Of no particular |
moment This is another triviality |
which has nothing to do with my
fitness or competency to hold this
office.
While 1t is not contained in the sec
tions dealing with the district attor-
ney's office in the report of the sub
committee. in article 3. paragraph l.
under the heading of Chances Of
Punishment Slight" the statement is
made that 4,919 persons were arrested
for felonies and only 1,454 indicted, !
leaving 3,465 not indicted. The rec
ords OF this office disclose no such fig
ures for the fiscal year ending June
80. 1884. There were l,454 indict-
ments returned during the period JAN
| uary %, 1924. to and including jan
uary 81, 1885, the first year Of my
term of office. In these indictments
there were 2,0l3 defendants. The sub
committee gives no analysis of the fig
ures which 1t submits, but 1t Is evil
dent that the difference between 2.0l3
defendants indicted and the 1919
persons reported as arrested for fell
onies is largely absorbed by the num-
Der of cases in the Police Court.
mined to be misdemeanors and are
tried there and punished as such, and
also by the not inconsiderable num-
ber Of cases where the defendants are
held by the Police Court for the grand
jury, but that body ignores. AS an
example of the fact that the number
Of indictments is no measure of the
number of defendants indicted for
felonies, it is pointed out that in 80
gambling indictments the number Of
defendants was ITO. The unfair and
misleading inferences that chances of
punishment are slight in the District
of Columbia therefore are not borne
out by the records.
The foregoing is a complete answer
to that portion of the report of the
subcommittee directed against me and
the administration of my Office, but
am justified in making a general
statement of what the records of this
Office show, as taken from the annual
report at the close of the last fiscal
year. These records show that 1244
criminal cases we're started during that
period. OF these cases, 1,166 were
terminated, 755 by pleas Of guilty, 1865
by verdicts Of guilty and 40 by ac-
quittal. The records of this Office
show that comparatively few cases
were nolle pressed last year. Compar-
ing the percentage of convictions and
nolles for preceding years, the record
is favorable to the last fiscal year. My
first year Of service. ending January
%, 1885, presents an even better rec
ord.
The records also show that the
Government has prevailed in 189 civil
cases and has lost 46 during the first
year OF my tenure of Office, ending
January %, 1885. These as include
80 consent judgments in war risk |
cases, approved by the Department of
Justice
In the Court of Appeals the Govern
ment has prevailed during the same
period In % cases and has lost four.
One of the aforementioned cases was
finally successfully prosecuted by me
in the Supreme Court Of the United
States.
Mr.. KindIeberger.
No Judge OF any court in this Dis
trict has complained to me of the con-
duct of the district attorneys Office
nor Of any assistant save Mr.. Fitz-
patrick. The work of the Office in the
Police Court has never been more eff
ciently conducted. The trials of jury
cases there are current. When I be-
came United States attorney the Bar
Association of the District of Colum-
bia had appointed committee to in
vestigate the bonding situation in the
District, especially with regard to the
Police Court, and most sinister rumors
we're current regarding this matter.
Since I have been district attorney
and Mr.. Kindleberger has been in
charge of the Police Court, all COM
plant has stopped and there has
been no occasion for the committee
to function, and the bonding business,
as all other business in that court, is
on a satisfactory and high plane.
Conclusion.
In answer to the unfair and preju-
diced deductions of the report as to
my capacity as lawyer and the eff
cheney of my office, it is distasteful In
the extreme to present my qualif1ca-
tions and accomplishments. I hope.
however, 1t may not be unSeemly for
me to say that while I have not been
a police court LAWYER, I have been |