The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-01

Cdoc WAl AOL Uc COlelOcIeU Uy LAle jury.
 First" said Judge Inglis, before the jury was called into the court room, with reference to the mo- tions to dismiss. I have concluded that I have to deny all the motions and they are denied"
 Without hesitating, Judge 1nglis continued that with reference to the motion of Attorney Sidney s. Cas- sel to strike out the testimony oi former County Detective Edward J Hickey, referring to a conversation he had with former defendant Ralph Coppeto, he had decided ito grant that motion"
 Attorney Cassel requested Judge Inglis, to instruct the jury to dis regard the testimony, and to have 1t stricken from the record.
 Jury Instructed
 The testimony concerned a con. versation of Hickey with Ralph Cop. peto, during which Hickey had ques- toned Coppeto about the where. abouts of his brother, Philip Cop. peto, a defendant, during the days of the grand jury probe.
 Attorney Cassel contended that the evidence was admitted only be. cause Ralph Coppeto was a defend ant at the time. Since the time oi the Hickey testimony, Ralph Cop peto has been discharged from the case by Judge Inglis for lack ot evidence.
 When the jury was called in Judge Inglis instructed them in &C., cordance with the requests of At- torney Cassel.
 Attorney James D. c. Murray, ap- bearing for Mayor Hayes, took ex- ception to the denial of his motion for directed verdict of acquittal and Attorney Thomas F. McDonough counsel for Alderman Thomas P Kelly urged Judge Inglis to record the exception in favor of all the defendants.
 At exactly 10:10 o'clock, Attorney Hugh M. Alcorn, Jr., 3l-year-old son of Special Prosecutor Alcorn, Sr., arose and addressed the court and jury, prepared to open his argu- ments on behalf of the state.
 Slim and spectacled, he strode from the state table, and faced the jury, from behind a table contain- ing transcript of all the testimony recorded in the nine months of trial.
 Judge Inglis leaned back in his chair, defendants sat with chins cupped in hands, defense attorneys listened intently, and Special Prose- cutor Alcorn and Assistant Special Prosecutor Harold E. Mitchell, both of whom will also argue for the state, sat quietly at their table.
 Identifies Self
 Hardly seat was empty, as the young assistant special prosecutor, making his initial statements in the trial, identified himself as mot hay ing the vocabulary of Attorney Craw- ford, nor the self-confessed ora torical gift of Attorney McDonough, the volume control of Attorney Slade, or the experience and cunning of Alt torney Murray"
 Commencing his arguments of condemnation of the 19 defendants, Alcorn, Jr, first concentrated on claims of checks paid by the city of Waterbury during the eight years of the alleged conspiracy, without the approval of the board of finance.
 A thick sheaf of papers were be- fore him for reference as he con- tinued, stating that even checks to former Justice Brandeis of the su- preme court of the United States had been paid without approval, and in violation of the city charter.
 Tt is very necessary" Alcorn said to the jury at the opening of his ar- gument, "in trial of this length to keep your eye on the ball"
 He described ash ''red herring" the purported attempts of the defense to get the jury off on side track of matters not of interest to the state and not contained in the informa- tion.
 Participation
 Your interest is on the question, ;" he said, of did each defendant par ticipate to some extent in conspir- acy to defraud the city of Water bury"" The young prosecutor said that he expected Judge Inglis would charge the jury that they were not interested in the degree to which any defendant might have partici- pated, but whether each had partici- pated.
 "The state claims that each partic- ipated knowingly and to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury" he continued. and followed with the claim that it was not necessary for each of the defendants to have known the others, as long as he knew one other member of the group.
 Reiterating the claims of the state from the early days of the trial, young Alcorn cried that 1t is not necessary for the state to prove that each defendant entered the conspir- acy at the inception. Our claims are sufficiently shown, If 1t has been shown that a defendant joined the conspiracy before it's conclusion" he said.
 Tt is not necessary to prove that l9 men sat down and signed a sheet of paper. It is only necessary to show certain facts from which you can infer there was a conspiracy. It IS seldom you can prove a conspir- acy any other way" he said.
 T hope you will not be deluded by the claims that the defendants did not meet" he urged, pointing out in addition that he hoped the fudge would charge that 1t was not neces- sary that it be proved all the de- fendants had met.
 Since the completion of the states and defense evidence, Alcorn said, he had given considerable thought to the best means of presenting his arguments to the jury.
 Tt will be best" he said, ''to take the evidence chronologically to show how the conspiracy developed from