The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-14

criminal causes, we find a juris- diction that is even more re- stricted. There are expressions of opinion that deny the jurisdic- tion altogether. There are others that seem to limit the disclosure to documents that are the sub- Ject of the charge. Others concede or assume a broader ju- risdiction, one adequate to pre- went a failure to justice, yet nar- rover than discovery in equity or under the statutory substitute"
 Certainly the modern trend of authorities in this country is to hold that it is discretionary with the court in a criminal case to allow an inspection of documents or other articles in the possession of the states attorney and that that discretion ought to be exer- cised in favor of the accused when the documents sought are the very subject of the charge and admissible in evidence, and it is necessary for a fair presenta- tion of the case on trial that the accused inspect them in advance of the trial. Massie V Peo., (Colo) 258 Pac. 226; State Col son, (Mo) 30 s. w. 2nd. 59; Peo V Miller, 257 N. Y. 54; 177 N. E. 306; State DiNoi, (RI) 195 Att. 497.
 The policy of the law of Con- necticut on the subject was laid down in 1887 in Daly Dimock, 55 Conn.,, 579. That was man. damus proceeding brought by one
 accused of murder to compel the clerk of the court to permit the accused to inspect the testimony taken before the coroner which testimony in accordance with the statute had been filed with the clerk. At page 589 the court says: "The argument that the writ ought not to be granted because it is the indicted party who asks for 1t, is not a very weighty one. The law presumes every man to be in- nocent until the contrary appears; and it's policy is to give every man accused of crime a reasonable op- portunity to prepare and present to a jury his defense.
 Fair Opportunity
 The state does not desire to pro- cure convictions by any unfair con- cealment or surprise. It concerns itself quite as much in having the innocent acquitted as in having the guilty convicted. While it af- lords every reasonable facility for the prosecution of offenders, it is no less solicitous to give to every accused person fair and reason able opportunity to make his de- fense." The court pointing out the fact that under the statute the transcript of the testimony before the coroner was public record, directed the superior court to or- der the clerk to permit the &C., cused person to inspect it. From this, 1t is clear that it is the policy of our law to open to the inspec- tion of a person accused of crime at least such documents as are public records if such inspection. is reasonably necessary for an adequate preparation of the &C., cused's defense.
 In this case, except that in some instances an accused asks leave to inspect his own books and papers taken from him in the grand jury proceedings, which request obvi- ously should be granted, the only documents or records which are specifically referred to in the mo- tions as being the objects of the inspection sought are the records of the City of Waterbury. These are public records. Except for the fact that they had been impound- ed as evidence they would have been open to the inspection of any person who had a personal and legal interest therein. 37 L. R. A. 82, Note: 60 A. L. R. 1856 Note. They, therefore, come squarely within the group of docu- ments which Daly V Dimock, supra, holds should be open to the inspection of an accused.
 Difficulty
 Here also we are not faced with the difficulty with which the old common law courts are faced, namely, the contention that the courts not having equitable juris- diction had no power to order the prosecutor to permit an inspection of articles in his possession. In the present case all of the docu- ments and records in question were in evidence as exhibits, be- fore the grand jury which was an arm of the court.
 When the grand jury made its report the court ordered the ex- hibits turned over to the Special States Attorney Subject to the order of the Court" They are therefore, impounded with the Special States Attorney, subject to the Courts order and control.
 It is to be noted that the in- formation charges that one of the unlawful methods used by the conspirators, in pursuance of the conspiracy, to accomplish the al- legged purpose of defrauding the city of Waterbury, was the rNa- nipulation of the checks, records and books of the city. Accordingly these checks, records and books are of the very subject matter of the charge against these accused. For that reason, in any juris- diction which permits insepction at all they are just the sort of things, inspection of which would