The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1940-05-06
Conspiracy Attorneys
File Scores Of Errors
Continued From Page u

AVM q use ~
the universal law In this country
but not In Russia-that the State
must prove Its accusation by evil
dence beyond a reasonable doubt
and OConnor, Santalucia and
Healey claim that the Courts
charge on the effect OF their deter
mination not to testify because the
State had failed to prove Its case
against them Is reversible error,
Hcarsay Evidence
Another assignment Is the finding
by the Judge, very early In the trial,
that a prima facie case of the con-
spiracy as charged was established
and thereafter admitted hearsay
evidence to convict them from the
lips Of Levy, whom they never met
nor knew.
The Judges charge Is claimed to
be all one-Sided, that the States
claims were magnified and these
defendants claims minimized, that
the Judge constantly instructed the
jury as to the claims Of the State as
though evidence had been intro
duced TO prove them, when as O
matter OF fact there was no evil
dence on said points: that the court
frequently charged the jury
must draw differences from the
States evidence and claims, thus in
dlcating that they had no alterna-
tive but to draw differences Of guilt;
the Court refused to charge the jury
that they must not reach an In
ferepce unless evidence Is intro
duced 10 support the inference, the
Court failed 10 warn the Jury at the
end OF each trial week and recess
not TO read the newspapers, listen
to the radio, or talk with others or
let others talk to them about the
case (the trial lasted for months
and at least two recesseS were taken
on account of sickness, but no warn
ing was given the jury to refrain
from newspapers ana radio) the
Court failed to keep the jury to-
gether after the charge was begun
and to again warn them against
reading newspapers and listening to
the radio (The Judge split his
charge, part ended on Friday, Aug
ust II, 1899 and the jury were al
loved to dispense and 60 home until
the following Tuesday, August Is,
1899 without warning): The Court
charged the jury IN one paragraph
that all the defendants were pre-
sumed to know the charter require
ments as to the Issuance Of checks,
the necessity Of approval of claims
by the Board Of Finance and the
bookkeeping system Of the City that
the violation of the charter and
this knowledge should be considered
TO prove that they were conSpirators
and yet later the court charged 10
the contrary that those defendants
who had no knowledge of the
charter requirements as to the ap-
proval and payment Of claims could
not be held liable for such viola
tons, such contradictory instruc-
tons confused the jury and did not
give them clear statement of the
law:
Not Fraudulent
The defendants maintain that the
Browning contract, which the State
claims was fraudulent and started
the conspiracy was In fact of benefit
to the City and was not fraudulent
as was shown by LevyIs evidence
and It ended In 1892 and therefore
any conspiracy which depended on
said contract for its existence term
mated with said contract and did
not continue for six years thereafter
and therefore there was no contin-
uing conspiracy for 8 years as claim
ed by the State.
All three defendants claim that
the sentences were not fair and Just
as found by the trial judge; that
the verdict was reached after a
meagre six hours of elaboration,
was a snap verdict without conSid-
Grafton of each defendants claims,
like a fisherman scooping up fish
with net, making no distinctions
and that the Court should have
appreciated this fact in imposing
sentences that the Court apparently
misconceived public opinion In Wa
terbury In imposing the excessive
sentences. Crank Hayes Is 81 years
old and his sentence Of not less than
10 and not more than is years in
States Prison, means a life SEN
tence).
Mr.. O'Connor claims that the
Court utterly failed to call to the
jury'S attention the evidence of Mr..
Purcell. who was the comptroller'S
auditor and who testified that Mr..
OConnor had fully accounted for
the petty cash which came into his
hands, that he treated this fund as
a trust fund, did not mingle it with
his own funds, that he never cashed
City heck at the Waterbury Trust
Company, that his petty cash checks
Of $500 each did not have to be APP
proved by the Board OF Finance,
that there was not a word Of evil
dence tending to prove that he d.
vided the money he received from
any person but that 1t was spent for
and in behalf Of the City: that he
never cheated or defrauded the City
OF Waterbury. he had no know
ledge OF the conspiracy and was not