Evening star., 1940-03-01
Hearings Slated
On Plan for D. {.
Public Defender
Senator Van Nuys
Heads Subcommittee
To Study Proposal

Slonal actlon on the Capper bill to
establish q public defender system
in the District was seen today fol-
lowing appointment of a special
subcommittee Of the Senate Ju.
dietary Committee to hold public
hearings on the measure.
Senator Van Nuys, Democrat, Of
Indiana. was named by Chairman
Ashurst of the Judiciary Committee
to head the subcommittee. Senator
Norris, independent, of Nebraska
and Connally, Democrat. of Texas
were the others chosen to serve
on the subcommittee.
In announcing appointment of the
subcommittee. Chairman Ashurst
said he expected hearings to start
in the next 10 or IS days.
II have an idea there may be q
real need for a public defender
system in Washington" Senator
Ashurst said today, but I, for one,
am anxious to be enlightened more
on the subject. The subcommittee,
I'm sure. will make thorough in
vestigation."
System Criticized by Court.
Agitation for speedy action on the
pending legislation gained fresh i'm
petus following criticism by the
United States Court of Appeals Of
the Districts present system of as
signing inexperienced lawyers to
defend INDECENT persons accused Of
serious crimes.
The appellate court voiced its dis
satisfaction with the Districts pres
ent system in an opinion handed
down Wednesday, reversing the Dis
trict Court conviction OF a colored
man for flrst-degree murder. This
was followed by new demands by
representatives of both the bench
and the bar for establishment of q
public defender system.
Senator Ashurst recalled that
when he was practicing law in
Arizona lawyers received no fees
for defending INDECENT persons. and
they took the view that such serv-
| ice was a duty they owed to the
judge, the bar and to society.
Favors Thorough Study.
However" he added, "the public
defender system may be the best
solution of the problem today. It
certainly merits a thorough study"
Under the pending legislation, the
public defender, who would receive
a fixed salary. would represent and
defend without a fee any INDECENT
person charged with or held on
suspicion Of having committed any
offense punishable by death or i'm
prisonment. sentenced to a term Of
more than 80 days or penalized by a
fine of more than $500. The public
defender would be provided with q
staff of assistants.
A bill modelled after the Capper
measure has been introduced in the
House by Representative Kefauver,
Democrat, of Tennessee.
Conviction Set Aside.
The appellate courts decision two
days ago came in the case of Will
liam F. johnson, 22-year-old colored
laborer, who had appealed for q
new trial following his conviction
on first degree murder charge for
the shooting of George Scandals,
foreman of a bakery at 476 L street
S.W.
The court set aside the conviction
and granted a new trial on the
ground that evidence favorable to
the defendant, when introduced in
District Court after Jo.,nsons con-
viction, failed to allow him a new
trial.
The difficulty in the Scandals
case, it has been pointed out, arose
as result of the failure of john
sons attorneys to examine the tram
script of testimony given at the cor
oner's inquest. One of the witnesses
at that hearing was an employe of
the bakery, Robert Thomas, who
saw the shooting. He left the city
after the inquest and the defense
attorneys, not knowing of his testi-
mony, made no effort to produce
him at the District Court trial, al
though an effort to locate him was
made by the District attorney.
Affidavit Obtained.
The defense later obtained an affi-
davit from Thomas, setting forth the
testimony he would have given had
he appeared at the trial. On the
basis of this affidavit a new trial was
requested. Justice James M. Proctor
held a hearing and questioned
Thomas carefully, but denied the
| motion for new trial in the belief
that his testimony. would not have
been beneficial to the defendant
and therefore did not warrant re-
opening the case. He made it clear,
however, he was denying the motion
because he saw nothing of impor-
tance in Thomas testimony, and not
because of any supposed negligence
on the part of defense counsel in
failing to locate the witness before
the trial was over.
In setting the conviction aside, the
appellate court disagreed with JUS
tice Proctor, expressing the belief
that the testimony In the Thomas
afddavit might have Influenced the
jury IN favor of the defendant If It
had been presented at the trial. Be-
ing OF this opinion, the appellate
court added it did not think johnson
should be penalized because his at
torneys were inexperienced and for
that reason did not study the evi-
dence submitted to the coroner. Had
that Deen done, the court concluded.
q diligent effort presumably would
have been made by the defense to
ind Thomas.
Senator Mead Discusses