The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-06-21
HAYES RIGHTS
 VIOLATED-ATTY
Continued From Page 1)

Herry Minor and John s. Johnston, were filed by Attorney Patrick Hea- ley.
 Four motions were also filed for Attorney Thomas P. Kelly by Alt torney Thomas R. McDonough.
 Seven motions each were filed for Ralph Coppeto and Philip Coppeto by Attorney Sidney s. Cassel.
 Four motions were filed by At torney William J. Wholean for Mar tin J. Dunn.
 The majority of the motions were greatly repetitions, however. There were some which maintained differ ence of opinion on certain points.
 Six Hayes Motions
 The six motions as filed for Mayor Hayes are as follows:
 1. Demurrer to the information, upon the ground that 1t does not state crime or offense under the common law or statute, and that 1t was improperly filed and re- turned, and also, because 1t was signed by MT. Alcorn, whom we claim was not properly appointed as special states attorney.
 2. Motion to quash information, upon the ground that MT. Alcorn's appointment as special states attor- ney was irnprope, and illegal for the following reasons:
 a. MT. Lewis and his assistant,
 who are regular states attor- neys for the judicial district of Waterbury were not legal ly" disqualified from acting in the matter.
 b. MT. Hoyt and the assistant
 states attorneys for the coun-
 ty of New Haven were not
 disqualified from acting in the matter.
 C. There was no cause pending
 before the superior court at
 time MT. Alcora's appoint
 ment was made, as coaten1-
 plated by the statute.
 d. The appointment of MT. AL
 corn was by one judge of the
 court instead of by all of the
 judges of the court. sSlgntS V1OlateQ The motion to quash also raises the point that the information was obtained in violation of Hayes con. stitutional right to be represented by an attorney, also the appearance before the grand jury of MT. Alcorn and his assistants and a stenog- rapher, the violation of Hayes con. stitutional right against self-incrim- nation. MT. Hayes was compelled to testify before the grand jury in violation of federal and state con- stitutions.
 3. A plea in abatement, for all of the reasons set forth in the mo- ton to quash and also for the req. son that most of the offenses al- legged in the information are barred, which means they are legally out- lawed, by the statute of limitations which we claim is only one year. In this connection, we point out that many of the acts set forth in the in. formation occurred many years ago.
 Report Attacked 4. Motion to strike out certain allegations from the information. Under this, we contend that the in- formation contains many statements of alleged matters which are scan- dalous, irrelevant and immaterial, could never be admissible at the trial and were put in the informa- tion only for the purpose of creating resentment and hatred against Hayes, and depriving him of fair trial
 5. Motion to inspect the grand jury minutes. The basis for this ap- plication is the decision of Judge Baldwin in the Merritt Parkway case, and also the ground that be- cause of violation of constitutional rights of the accused, he is entitled to an inspection of all the testimony offered against him, as we'll as his own testimony before the grand jury, in order to enable him to pre- pare for trial.
 6. Motion to quash and expunge grand jury report. We find that there is no provision in statute or any authority in law for a grand jury to file such a report as here. The vitriolic language of the report coupled with the fact that there was added weight to it in the eyes of prospective jurors by being ad- mitted to the archives of the court and filed as public document, makes it necessary that the court act in the matter and strike it out and physically have it expunged | from the record.