The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-11-29

pIeSl0I1lB aG Glc CUklSpVaCy CE1Al. The motion, which was denied by Judge Inglis, reads as follows:
 STATE OF CONNECTICUT
 vS.
 T. FRANK HAYES EFT AIS
 Superior Court for New Haven
 County at Waterbury,
 November 28, 1888.
 Claim of the defendants, Frank J. SantaIucia, James P. Healey, Carl D. Olsen, Charles s. O'COn- '. nor, Donate Pietraroria.
 That the Honorable Ernest A. Inglis is disqualified and ought not to sit as the trial judge.
 The undersigned defendants, Frank J. Santalucia, James P. Healey, Carl D. Olsen, Charles s. O'Connor, Donate Pietraroria re- spectfully object to the Honorable Ernest A. Inglis sitting as pre- siding Judge in the trial of this cause and assert that he Is dis- qualified to sit and act in said capacity because:
 } 1. He caused the Special Grand Jury to be summoned to investi- gate the municipal affairs of the City of Waterbury by procedure unprecedented in this State and appointed the Special States Att torney to examine and cross-ex- anime witnesses under oath sworn to secrecy, including these de- fendants before said Special Grand Jury, he changed and di- rected the said special Grand Jury that they were not an ordinary Grand Jury, that their procedure was not the same as that of an ordinary Grand Jury, that they need not file a present. ment nor an indictment but they could file a report; he was in charge of and acted as adviser of said Grand Jury as to matters of law and procedure, he advised and conferred with the said Special States Attorney, as to matters of law and procedure controlling the seven weeks session of said Grand Jury; he permitted to be read in open Court the voluminous report of said Special Grand Jury, which is made 8 part hereof and mark ed Exhibit "A";; he permitted said report to be published in the newspapers and be broadcast on the air from Waterbury stations while it was being read to him and prior to its acceptance by him; at the conclusion of the reading of said report, he issued the bench warrants for the arrest of these defendants, and the defendants were forthwith arrested on the re- quest of the Special States Attor- ney based upon his oath of office but without preliminary hearing or opportunity to be heard to the defendants; the Special Grand Jury are now in recess, are not discharged, and said Judge is now and continues to be the adviser and in charge of the said Special Grand Jury and obligated to di- rect their proceedings and pass upon questions of law and pro- cedure which may arise in the event that further investigation be had in relations to said muni- cipal affairs and the connection of the defendants herewith; the po- sition of the said Judge in his said capacity as presiding Judge at said Grand Jury investigation, is 1nconsonant with his duties as presiding Judge and disQualifies him to now sit as presiding Judge in the trial of this cause, wherein the defendants stand accused on the information based on said Special Grand Jury's investigation and report and wherein the de- fendantS are presumed to be in- nocent and their guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
 2. The said Judge overruled the defendants motions as on file, which attacked the legality of the Special Grand Jury proceedings wherein they were compelled to appear before said body without counsel, give evidence under cross- examination by the Special States Attorney without warning of their constitutional rights not to give evidence which would tend to in- criminate them, which evidence thus illegally obtained is the basis of this prosecution and in all probability will be offered by the State in this trial to convict the defendants of the crime of con- spiracy and inasmuch as the said Judge has ruled and expressed in his written memoranda of opinion, as on file, that the summoning of the said Special Grand Jury and its proceedings did not violate the law, that the defendants constitu- tional rights had not been violated and has indicated in said opinions that the evidence given by the de- fendants before said Grand Jury if offered by the State in this trial might be admissible and inas- much as the presumption is that he will adhere to his said former rulings and will not reverse him. self and will overrule the defend- ants objection to the evidence given before the Special Grand Jury if and when offered by the State, 1t follows that the defend ants will be deprived of fair and impartial trial to which they are entitled under the law.
 3. The said Judge 0verruled all questions of law heretofore raised by plea in abatement, motion to quash and demurrer, filed by the defendants, and has formed an opinion as to the law raised by said pleadings contra to the claims therein; and inasmuch as these same legal questions will arise in the trial of the cause (a) by rul- ings on evidence (b) whether or not the State by evidence has es- tablished a prima facie case of conspiracy against them and (c) in the Courts charge to the jury, and inasmuch as it is reasonable a-