The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-03-07


 FRANKIE (BURNs) sANTALUCTA
 It is true that the statute refers to the states attorney Gin any coun- ty," that the states attorney and his assistant who pleaded disQualifi- cation had been appointed under 5365 of the General Statutes for the judicial district of Waterbury in New Haven County and that there was at the time, e states attorney for New Haven County; but the sta- ute clearly recognizes the states att .orney for the judicial district of Waterbury as holding q distinct of- flee, and in our practice 1t has been 50 recognized. The statutes fair inc tendment authorized Its application in this case; otherwise in such a situation as that which arose in the judicial district of Waterbury the state would be put In the, untenable position that either the criminal prosecution would have to be car- ried on by prosecuting officers ad- nittedly disqualified or of having no prosecution at all inaugurated. At the time the order confirming the appointments was made and the special states attorney and his as- sistants were directed to prosecute the case. the information had been filed and the case was pending. If. however, there was any defect In the appointments made, those appoint cd were at least de facto officers; their right to perform the duties iIn- posed upon them could only be as- sailed in a direct proceeding such as by writ of quo waTanto; and the question is not open upon this ap- peal from the conviction of the de- fendants. Brown V. O'CUnnell, 36 Conn. 432, t49; State v. Carroll, 39 Conn. 449, 47i; In re Manning, l39 U.y 504. il Sup. Ct., SPA; State V. Pou!in, -l05 Me-. PA. 220, "A All. 1l9; Tn re Gilson, 334 Kaia.; 641; 644, 9 Pac.s 763; Task v. United States, Pin. tWis.) v, 80;, Constaiatineau De Facto Doctrine, 405 ct seq. In fact the files in the Superior Court at Waterbury show that one of the defendants did bring a proceeding in the nature of a writ of quo war; rpnto attacking the right of the spe- clal state's attorney to- proceed In the matter: the court found that he was properly appointed and no appeal from that decision was per- fected. '.t wv e% T"+
 r4 Charge to Jury
 The charge to the jury covers one hundred and thirty-eight pages of the printed record and its delivery occupied the court an entire court day and parts of two others. The defendants have attacked 1t by more than two hundred and seventy-five separate assignments of error. Ob- viously 1t Is neither feasible nor necessary to refer to each of these specifically. Some of them are made without regard for proper practice. A number are based upon the transcript of evidence instead of the claims of proof in the find- ing or are argued in utter disregard of either, anS tH--" rcooot avail the te:epdants. for the validity of
 charge must De v--.ed by the find- ing, and by that alone.
 Tn many instances error is as- signed in certain portions of the charge, which, standing by them- selves, might seem to be erroneous, Eut which, read in connection with related instructions, were adequate and correct. As we have repeatedly held. cit is never permissible, or fair to the trial court, to detach such portions of a charge, incomplete in themselves, from the proper con- text, and present them as errors. ''
 Assignments by several of the de- fendantS attack the charge on the ground that the courts comments on the evidence were in the nature of an argument for the state, and that these dealt so largely with details of evidence as to confuse the jury and improperly influence their con- clusions on the issues of fact. In this connection the defendants ar- que that the claims of the state and Of the cefendants were 20 stated as unduly to emphasize the former and the evidence support.ng them while the latter and the evidence thereof were rassed lightly ever. A care- full consideration of the charge in it's entirety, in connection with the circumstances of the tTia: disclosed by the record, reveals that these criticisms are unwarFanted. The trial was unusual in the number of defendants upon whose guilt or inc rocence the fury had to decide. in the scope and duration of the con- spiracy charged and in the variety of facts elleged in the information as done pursuant to it. in the num- Der of counsel participating, in the many months eonfumed in the tak- ing Of testimony. in the extent and divetfIty of arguments on behalf oi the various paFties, and in the length of the chargc delivered by