The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-06-21

anu CrCSS~eXamIHe ana thus Oos tain information that tended to incriminate him, and said use of the Special Grand Jury, so-called was unlawful and in derogation of the rights of the defendant guaranteed to him by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and article 1 section g of the Constitution of this State.
 5. During said examination be- fore and by the said body and prosecuting attorneys, the truth of his statements and answers were doubted and ridiculed, he was accused of violating penal laws, threatened with arrest and pun ishment, his records and books, if any, were taken from him either by demand or subterfuge and the same are now being held by the said prosecuting officers, all with the purpose and intent of obtaining statement or state ments from the defendant tending to incriminate him and whereby to cause his arrest, prosecution, conviction and punishment, and all in violation of his constitution al rights of due process of law.
 6. The said Special Grand Jury, so-called, and the Special States Attorney and his two assistants performed or attempted to per- form functions of this Court, wherefore their unlawful conduct in obtaining the information and facts in deprivation of this de- fendant's constitutional rights as is herein set worth and upon which this information and crim- inal accusation is founded and the bench warrant issued and the defendant deprived of his liberty enters, into, vitiates and renders void in the law this entire crim- inal proceeding.
 2. There is no statutory pro- vision nor legal justification for the selection, creation and exis- tence of the so-called Special Grand Jury and if the common law is relied upon for it's creation and existence, then it's manner of selection violates the legal re- quisites of the common law, in this, that common law required members of the Grand Jury to be freeholders but at least four of the members of this said jury, so- called, were not freeholders, viz, Messrs. New, Mordo, Klebes and Flanagan, wherefore the said members were not qualified to act as members of the Special Grand Jury, so-called, the said Special Grand Jury, so-called was illegal ly impaneled and its proceedings are void and without legal effect and the evidence and information obtained by said Grand Jury was unlawfully obtained and unlaw- fully made available to and used by the Special States Attorney in filing this information and &C., cusing the defendant, wherefore the information, warrant and pro- ceeding is void in the law.
 8. The proceedings before said Special Grand Jury, socalled, were not secret, in this, that there were present before them, active in ex- animation and cross-examination of witnesses, the Special States Attorney and his two assistants, and other persons of his staff, not members of the body, entered ir1- to and exited from the Special Grand Jury, so-called, room dur ing it's proceedings; accountants of the Special States Attorney staff examined books and records in business places outside the jury room and these books and records form part of the evidence intro duced before said Special Grand Jury, so-called. Camera men em- ployed by newspapers were posted at the door of the court house wherein the jury room was located and each witness who went be- fore the jury was photographed by flashlight and his or her pie ture printed in the newspapers with a story as to his probable testimony; the names and identi- flcation of the said persons so appearing before the so-called Special Grand Jury were pulp lished in newspapers throughout this and the United States by Associated and United Press dis patches: daily broadcasts on the local radio stations were made giving similar information: copies of the so-called report of the Special Grand Jury. so-called, was in the hands of a coterie Of news- paper men and published in a local newspaper prior to the con- summation of the reading of the said report in and to this Court.
 g. The manner and procedure adopted by the Special Grand Jury, so-called. and the Special States Attorney and his assistants became and was an .ex parte criminal prosecution of which the defendant was one of the accused and because of this fact the de- fendant was entitled by right to know the nature of the accusation against him, be confronted with accusing witnesses, have the pre- sence of counsel, as guaranteed by the l4th Amendment of the Unit ed States Constitution and Article l. Section g of the State Constitu- ton, but all of said rights were . dendied him.
 10. The special states attorney who filed the information and &C., cused this defendant and at whose request the bench warrant was is- sued whereby the defendant was arrested and thus deprived of his liberty was not and is not invested with the power and authority to act as the special states attorney at Waterbury and to file said in- formation, or to accuse the de- fendant or to pray for and obtain a bench warrant from this court and thereby cause the arrest of this defendant because although the states attorney an' the as- sistant states attorney at Water bury each disqualified himself to act, neither the states attorney in and for New Haven County. nor