The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-08-26

report, all were assailed for their various activities during the trial itself or during the hectic weeks preceding the execution of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. .
 The criminal law section of the Bar Association accepted the report and forwarded 1t the the executive committee without comment.
 Amendment Rejected
 After an hours debate, the section rejected a proposed amendment that would have placed 1t on record as criticizing the conduct of the pre- siding justice, prosecuting attorney and defense counsel.
 The report was submitted by Judge Oscar Hallafn of St. Paul, Minn., as chairman of the co1iirlit- tee which also included Charles P. Taft II of Cincinnati O., Albert J.. Harno of Urbana, H., and John Kirkland Clark of New York.
 Hits At Wilentx
 Judge Hallam said Wilentz had "indulged" in publicity during the trial, but that his preparation and presentation were exceptionally able" Silent throughout reading of the report, Wilentz late rissued this one sentence statement to the press: up to this time I have re- fused to discuss the case, and l sec no reason at this time to change from that policy"
 Gov. Hoffman Scored
 Referring to Hoffman, the report said: After the granting of the re. prieve, the governor continued his public comment on the case, at first devoting himself to 6 search for an accomplice but later to an active campaign against witnesses respon- sible for Hauptmann's conviction, arrnigning one after another of the witnesses for the state, particularly Dr. Condon, Willard Whited, Joseph Perrone, Armandus Hoclsmuth and Colonel Lindbergh.
 we cannot find any justifiable purpose in this line of attack. The case was closed except perhaps for the possible power of the governor to grant Q second reprieve, which he did not grant. Public and official attacks on these witnesses ct this stage of the case could serve no purpose except to discredit the yer. dict of tho jury and the Judgment of the court in finding and adJudg. ing Hauptmann guilty"
 Hoffman Hit Again
 As a member of the board of par- dons, Hoffman was criticized for:
 Going about searching for evi. dence which may impugn the yer. dict"
 Calling upon prospective appli- cants in their cells"
 "Indulging in public discussion of the merits of the case established in court"
 "voicing doubts as to the prison- CTS guilt"
 Arguing out alleged weaknesses in the states case--all ir advance of any action by the court of par- dons."
 All these things, said the report, are "repugnant to our sense of propriety" and "in our opinion un- warranted"
 "The net result" said the report. "seems to have large amount of publicity and much added annoy ance to the estimable family be. reaved."
 Dr. COndOn Spanked
 Referring to Dr. Condon, the re- port said
 Commencing with Jan. %, 1886. series of articles appeared in Liberty by pr. John P. Condon, who was witness at the trial in Flem- ington.
 "The articles are partly a narra- tive Of the events which had been detailed by Dr. Condon as a witness at the trial, but they were also in large part comments, deductions and arguments"
 Judge HallAm said that editors note at the end of each article promised new evidence"
 "Dr. Condon no doubt performed a useful service in securing con- tact with the kidnaper, but in our opinion the publication of these ar- ticles at the time they were pulp lished by one who was a witness in the case was decidedly out of place.
 "It must be remembered that the Hauptmann case was still pending. The sentence had not been execut- cd The air Wag charged with dia. cussion of the subjects of new trial pardon, communication and reprieve. Tn fact. the Condon ar- ticleS were much used in. this dis cusSion. Publication of any material bearing on the testimony, the issues or the theories of the case, at this time and under these circumstances, by one who had been a witness upon the tyial can see no useful purpose. and no purpose at all exc cept personal publicity or gain"
 R.awwmr RAfnnw EaaA