Evening star., 1935-05-11
POLL Of BEARD
Jury ON "PLANT"
CHARGE IS ASKED
Defense Counsel Calls At.
tention of Court to Con-
fIict in Statements.
NEW TRIAL MOTION
WEIGHED BY JUDGE
Three Jurors Afidavits Tell Of
Influence in Conviction of 13
in Gambling.

A post-trial poll of the jury which
convicted Sam Beard and IL associates
on gambling charges was proposed to-
day by Defense Counsel John j. Sirica
while Justice Joseph w. Cox had under
advisement evidence produced yes
terday that the verdict was Influenced
by the jury foreman's statement that
there was plant" on the jury.
With two women and one man on
record with affidavits that they were
influenced by intimations of jury
plant" and at least two other jury
members denying that the word
plant" had been used, Sirica sug-
gested that Justice Cox summon all
II jurors and personally question them
to determine the truth of the defense
charges.
The 13 men were convicted on all
three counts of the indictment Mon
day after a trial which lasted a week
in District Supreme Court.
With regard to the post-trial poll,
Sirica said:
Matter of Fairness.
"In view of published statements
this morning to the effect that some
of the jurors deny that the verdict
was Influenced by fear of some OF
them that they would fall under sus-
picion if they voted for acquittal, 1t
is only fair that all the jurors should
be questioned by the court"
These persons who said they
were influenced are reputable people
and the court should clear them of
any suspicion that they are not telling
the truth.
1T isn't necessary to question the
jurors about the evidence, but they
could properly be examined as to
these outside influences which swayed
them; whether they saw the newspa-
per headline stating Gamblers Bet
10-to-1 Beard Will Go Free and
whether there was any discussion in
the jury room of plant placed on
the jury by gambling interests"
Denial by Two Jurors.
Two of the IL jurors in the Beard
trial today denied they had heard any
talk of jury plant" or jury fixing"
during their brief deliberation Of the
case
w. M. Moore, grocer, Of 521 H
street, said: 1T looks like there was
some funny business somewhere. !
am positive that the word plant was
not used at any time. Those afti-
davits did not tell the truth as I
understand it."
With regard to allegations that the
foreman, Carl W. Hauf, made the i'm
putation on the basis Of newspaper
headline he saw while taking q bus
ride with the jury, Moore said:
II never saw a newspaper refer
ence to the trial at any time, nor did
1 hear one mentioned by members
of the jury"
T. ]. Culhane, 1903 Buchanan
street, declared he had never heard
the word plant" mentioned or any
intimation along that line while he
was locked up with the jury. He also
said he had seen no newspaper ref
erences to the case while on the jury,
Both jurors insisted the verdict was
honestly arrived at"
Glimpse of Headline.
It was a glimpse of the headline
which allegedly caused the jury fore
| man to assume there was a plant"
among the jurors, the defense con-
tends.
The jurors, whose afhdavits sup
ported the motion for a new trial were
| MrS Geraldine q Wilmer 27 of 2729
Connecticut avenue; Mrs. Mildred
Boyer, 80, of 3731 Jenifer street, and
F. j. Kraus, 20, of 933 L street.