The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-01

lay of the grand jury probe.
 and assured by swearing him to secrecy.
 It is therefore concluded that. under the law, the special states attorney and his assistants and the stenographer were properly present at the sessions of the grand jury and that their pres- ence offers no valid ground for the abatement of the action.
 Witnesses Obligated
 O Still another ground aS- signed in most of the pleas in abatement Is that the oath of secrecy was administered to the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. The argument is that this violated the constitutional right of such of the accused as testified before the grand jury to confer with counsel in the preparation of their defense in that it subjected them to a pen- alty in contempt proceedings If they disclosed to their counsel what they had testified to in the grand jury room.
 It is enough to say as regards this contention that 1t is not un- common procedure to exact from witnesses before grand jury the oath of secrecy. 38 c. J. page 8l3. Irrespective of such an oath, the law imposes on such witness the obligation of secrecy generally and violation of that obligation makes the witness subject to con- tempt proceedings. Accordingly the taking of the oath of secrecy does not in any way alter the po- sition of the witness before the law. It serves simply to impress upon the witness the fact that under the law he is bound to secrecy.
 The law recognizes that there are certain exceptions to the rule of secrecy. State V Fasset, 16 Conn. All; State Coffee, 56 Conn. 399. If by reason of consti- tutional law or otherwise as a matter of law an accused person has the right to disclose to his counsel what he testified to before a grand jury, then that is one of the exceptions to the rule of secrecy. All that witness has done in taking the oath of secrecy is to obligate himself to comply with the law of secrecy. If under that law he has the right to confide in his counsel to the extent of disclosing what he testified to, then he still has that right under his oath of secrecy.
 Rights"
 (g) It is alleged in most of the pleas that the defendants were not accorded before the grand jury the rights of an accused to be present, to be faced with the witness against them and cross examine such witnesses and to be represented by counsel. That they had any such rights in a grand jury proceedings is indeed novel proposition. A grand jury hearing is ex parte on behalf of the state. In spite of the rules promulgated in Lune's Case, supra, 1t has been held that the accused has no ab- solute right ever to be present at the taking of testimony before grand jury. State Wolcott, 2l Conn. 271. 279. The practice has never been to permit counsel for the accused to be present.
 (h) The main ground of the demurrer addressed to all of this second group of claimed grounds for abatement namely that the proceedings and actions of the grand jury are immaterial in con- nection with this action has not yet been discussed. It is a suffi- cient reason upon which to dis pose of all of the grounds referred to in paragraphs (a) to (g) in- elusive irrespective of the reasons already stated. It is particularly applicable to the sole remaining alleged ground for abatement of this group,
 That ground for abatement is that, as alleged, these accused were compelled by threats and unfair methods to give evidence against themselves before the grand jury, and were not warned against giving discriminating evi- dence.
 We are not concerned here with the validity of an indictment. The bench warrant to which these pleas in abatement are directed was issued on the strength of an information filed by the special states attorney under his oath of office. This is not case in which the constitution or the law re- uuires an indictment by grand jury as a prerequisite to trial. Granting as is claimed that the information of the special attor- ney is based exclusively on knoWl- edge obtained by him through the grand jury proceedings and that a part of that was unlawfuflly ob- tained, nevertheless the fact re- mains that the information was filed upon his oath of office and the proceedings is now pending on that information and not upon any findings of the grand jury based upon improper evidence which have led to an indictment.
 Coercion
 If police officer, invcstigat- ing crime had improperly CO.,