The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-11-29
Judge Denies Motion
 To Disquaify Self

. tegrity, honesty and probity of the accused and that he entertained 8 bias against their presumption of innocence when he wrote:
 one of the cogent reasons for maintaining that secrecy is, as 1t is put in Com. V Mead, l2 Gray (Mass) 167; n Am. D. TAI, that perjury and subornation of per- jury may be prevented by with holding the knowledge of facts testified to before the grand jury, which, if known, it would be for the interests of the accused or their confederates, to attempt to disprove by procuring false testimony" That reason for sec- recy continues to operate until the trial is over.
 "After all, the evidence taken by the grand jury makes up the States case. To expose that case to the accused and thereby put him in a position where he would tamper with the states witnesses or, knowing all of the details to which they were go- ing to testify, manufacture evi- dence to overcome the states case, would not promote the ends of justice"
 5. The record books of account and papers belonging to the de- fendantS Santalucia and Healey, were taken from their possession by virtue of the Grand Jury pro- ceedings and turned over to the Special States Attorney by the or der of said Judge and have been retained by said Attorney and will in all probability be offered in evidence by the State to convict the said defendants and by reason of. the presumption that the said Judge will adhere to his written opinion rendered on the defend- ants Motion to Inspect the Checks, as on file, in which it is held that Documents and records etc." It is apparent that the said Judge entertains a preconceived opinion as to the admissibility of these documents in evidence con- trary to the claims of the defend- ants and 1t is reasonable to as- sume that he will not reverse his ruling and will admit said books and records in evidence over de- fendants' objections and they will be deprived of fair and impartial trial.
 6. The questions of law deter- mined by the said Judge on the various pleadings heretofore filed by the defendants will again arise in the trial of the cause (a) in the admission of evidence (b) whether or not @ prima facie case of con- spiTacy has been proven Co the charge to the jury, and should be passed upon by a Judge with ar open mind on these questions and not by Judge 1nglis, who has al- . ready formed an opinion on the law; and it is reasonable to as. sume that he will not reverse him. self.
 2. The importance of thiI cause and the results thereof de mand a trial Judge who is with out bias, prejudice or preconceivet opinions of the law which vii arise during the trial.
 8. In Ruling Case Law, Vo 15, Page 526. we. find the follow ing language:
 Courts should scrupulously maintain the right of every liti- gant to an impartial and disin- terested tribunal for the deter imitation of his rights"
 The independence of the law de mands that the Judge who pre- sides at the trial in this crimina prosecution which has received such wide publicity, shall be who'll ly free from any possible criticism that he shall possess no precon' ceived opinions as to the law, ant that he shall not be placed in { position where he must reversl himself in order to decide ques' tions of law, which will or may arise in the trial, in favor of tn, defendants.
 WHEREFORE, the above nameC defendants, expressing their ut most confidence in his persona integrity, regretfully and respect fully state and claim that the Hon orable Ernest A. 1nglis ought no to sit as the trial Judge in thi cause and is disqualified to act a such.
 The Defendants, Frank J. San talucia, James P. Healey, Carl D Olsen, Charles s. O'Connor an, Donate Pietraroria, by their at torney
 JOHN H. CASSIDY