Evening star., 1936-11-13
MORE JURY CASES
DUE. WITH SHIFTS
IN drunk CHARGE
First, Second and Third
0ffense Counts Now
Held Necessary.
A. B. c. ACT AMENDMENT
IS BASIS FOR DECISION
Former Procedure Called Unfair
to Those Of Meager
Resources.
Several thousand additional eases

several tnOuSanQ addltl0naI eases
may be thrown open to right Of trial
by jury through the action Of Rice
Hooe, assistant corporation counsel,
in ordering that informations be
drawn charging first, second and third
ofiense drunkenness. 1t was learned
today.
Hooe, who recently was appointed
by Corporation Counsel Elwood Seal
as chief Of the ONCE at Police Court
to succeed Stanley DeNeale, based his
decision on the amendment to the
alcoholic beverage control act, passed
August ~, 1885.
This amendment. Hooe pointed out.
provides for o maximum fine OF 500
or not more than 80 days in jail or
both for first offense intoxication:
5000 fine or so days in jail or both
for second ofiense, and $500 or $50
days or both for third ofYense.
Although the provision was made
for the higher penalties by Congress
more than q year ago, no such charge
as second or third ofiense intoxication
has ever shown up in the Police
Court. Several sentences Of $500 or
$50 days in Jail have been meted out
to offenders but in every instance they
have been charged with first onense.
Cites Necessary Change.
Hooe said today that In order TO
Justify the higher penalty, the prose-
cution must specifically charge sec
ond or third ofiense In the informa-
ton and then 60 into court and prove
it. The mere fact that q mans rec
ord Is presented in court, according
to the prosecutor, does not justify his
conviction on the more serious Of
Tense.
In the past, persons charged with
drunkenness. regardless Of whether
1t was the first, second, third or if-
tieth offense, have been allowed to
post $40 collateral at the precinct with
the choice Of forfeiting 1t or standing
trial. This has allowed defendants
who had been convicted numberless
times to 60 free with . minimum cash
settlement, while those who were un-
able to furnish the required $40 col
lateral were held IN Jail, brought into
court and fined a. high rs $500 or $50
days in Jail.
Hooe has held that this u unfair
to those persons who are unable to
pay fines. With the new order in
effect, those who are able to pay will
suffer equally with those who are
not, Hooe believes. He contends that
20 . rnao srrnetad Tor dr,,nk annArs ie
found to be guilty Of other convictions
for the same offense by . search Of
the records, the police should require
o bond commensurate with the seri-
business of the offense and more Of
those who escape because they have
money will be brought into court for
trial. Under the more serious charge
a defendant could not forfeit col
lateral, since the law requires that
he stand trial. II he does not appear
In . court. his collateral will be for
feited as Is the case now, but an
attachment would be issued for his
arrest.
Police Court Overburd6ned.
The Police Court jury branch, al
ready overburdened by the more than
2,500 cases passed on to it each year
through the other courts, would have
an estimated $500 to 5000 cases
additional placed on its docket
through the new charges. The District
Court Of Appeals has held that where
the penalty is greater than 90 days
In Jail, the defendant is entitled to
trial by jury. This decision. rendered
In o test case to determine If persons
charged with soliciting prostitution
were entitled to jury trial, has sent
several hundred cases into the jury
court and others are pdling up daily.
The Police Court now disposes Of
more than $4,000 drunkepness cases
q year, according to william A.
Norgren, acting court clerk. A search
of the records, he claims, will show
that q majority Of these cases are old
offenders and therefore will have to
be charged with second or third
offense. II this Is the case. another
ful-time jury court would be required
to handle these cases alone. 1t was
pointed out.