The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-06-21
Four WaterburyJury
 Members Under Fire
tContinued from Page D

0ey ana ms assistant were. Fur" thermore, it was pointed out, two of the four local jurors were Re- publicans and two Independent Democrats, and consequently mem- bers of parties opposed to Mayor Hayes and his associates.
 Deprived of Rights
 It is also alleged in the six mo- lions that witnesses before the grand jury were deprived of their consti. tutional rights. that special Pros- ecutor Alcorn was illegally named. that secrecy was not preserved, that the grand jury report has no stand ing in law and highly colored" and that the defendants have been 
 The text of the plea in abatement filed on behalf of Carl D. Olsen (to which the other five motions are Similar) is as follows:
 Plea Of Abatement
 The defendant, pleads in abate- ment because
 1. Section 6446 of the General Statutes of this State which reads as follows:
 "An original information may be filed in the superior court against any person accused of crime in any case in which an inferior court may, at its discretion, punish him or bind him over for trial, and in any other case upon the order of the superior court" and
 Section 6456 of the said Statutes which reads as follows:
 "For all crimes not punishable by death or imprisonment for life, the prosecution may be by con- plaint or information" under the provisions of which this prosecu- tion is brought and under which the Special States Attorney accuses the defendant ana twenty-six others of the crime of conspiracy and under which this information is filed and the bench warrant prayed for, issued and the de- fendant arrested, violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Section g of Article of the Constitution of Connnecticut, because either or both of said statutes deprive the defendant of due process of law in this, that either or both deprive and have deprived the defendant, who has been accused of the said felony, arrested and put to trial, af a n baa ri tftt,n probable cause or lack of probable cause may be shown and wherein the defendant may be informed of the nature of the charge made against him and may be given the opportunity to appear in person or attorney and be confronted by accusing witnesses with the op- portunity of cross examining them.
 Violates Rights
 2. The present proceeding had under either or both of the said statutes violates the defendants constitutional rights under the 1zth Amendment of the ConStitu- ton of the United States and Article 1, Section of the Consti- trltion of this State in this, that the defendant has been accused, informed against, arrested and charged with felony without a preliminary hearing at which hearing the defendant should have been informed of the nature of the charge made against him and had an opportunity to cross examine and should have had an opportunity to appear and to be confronted by witnesses against him and to examine and cross- examine them and to offer evid- erce in his own behalf, wherefore he has been deprived of his con- Stitutional right of due process of law.
 No Common Law Sanction , 3. On or about the-day of
 -, 1888, the defendant was summoned before a Special Grand Jury, so called, sitting in Waterbury, which was selected without sanction in the common law and in violation of the Stat ute and the established custom in this State for the selection of members of a grand jury in this, that the said members were not chosen by the Sheriff of New Haven County, and were not drawn from the qualified jurors selected in accordance with the Statute in such case made and provided, but the members of said Special Grand Jury. so-called, were selected by the Special States Attorney and his assistants, who subsequently, appeared before said Special Grand Jury, so-called, and examined and s-examined the defendant and when he appeared before said so-called Special Grand Jury the defendant was placed under oath and sworn to secrecy by the said Special States Attor- ney not to divulge anything that transpired beforie the said jury, so-called he was not informed of the criminal charge to be made against him, he was not permitted to have counsel, the said oath and the warning to keep secret the happenings before the said jury, so-called, prevented him from ob- tai ing the advice of counsel, he was not confronted with witnesses against him, he had no opportun- ity to examine or cross examine accusing witnesses, he was compel led to give evidence against him. self. he was not warned that any evidence he might give which rendered to incriminate him would be used by the Special States Attorney to inform against him and to accuse him before this Court of the crime of conspiracy or any other crime and that he, the said Special States Attorney, would use said evidence to ask for and obtain a bench warrant for his arrest, he did not waive the right of immunity from piSs- ecution and arrest by reason of the statements he made before said body with the result that by said proceeding he was deprived of his constitutional right of due process of law given and guaran- feed tO him hv tha 1dtb Ap,apd