Evening star., 1941-05-13
Burko
Continued From First Page)

the jury that they could take into
consideration the defense claim
that Burko was the allegedly inno-
cent victim of q plot on the part of
Police Judge Walter j. Casey and
United States Attorney Edward M.
Curran, former Police Court judge,
against Police Judge Hobart New
man and Burko himself.
These defense contentious have
been branded by the prosecution
as only a smoke screen" to shield
the real charges.
Burko's fellow defendant, Bailifi
Sullivan, has pleaded guilty and
testified for the prosecution.
James J. Laughlin, defense counsel,
In his closing argument charged that
the only witness who testified that
Burko took any of the fines, which
he was alleged to have split with
Sullivan, was Sullivan himself. At
tacking the credibility of Sullivan's S
testimony in a confession which
had implicated Burko, the defense
counsel characterized Sullivan as a
rascal"
Referring to the Matte Edwards
case, Mr. Laughlin criticized Judge
Casey's disposition of the charge,
and said ANY judge who would dis
pose of a case like that should not
be reappointed to the bench OF
Police Court"
United States Attorney Curran was
referred to by Mr.. Laughlin as hav-
ing put another link in our chain
of conspiracy against Burko" by
Mr.. Curran's charge that Burko had
lied.
How did he know that Burko had
lied" asked Mr.. Laughlin, IF he
had not read the record of the De-
partment of Justice in the Newman
case-that record which was not to
be seen?" Burko had denied lying
to Justice Department agents re-
garding Mr.. Curran.
Joseph W. Shimon, detective SER
geant investigator in the Office of
United States Attorney Curran, de-
MED charges of Burko that the de-
fendant had been offered immunity
if he would tell about Judge New
man.
Allen j. Krouse. assistant United
States attorney, in rebuttal, vigor-
ously attacked the defense charges
Of plot against Burko as merely
a "smokescreen, that has nothing
to do with this case" He praised
Serg. Shimon for his courage in
taking the stand, referred to the
investigator role in the case. and
defended credibility of his testi-
mony.
Explaining to the jury that the
charge was conspiracy" to commit
the acts alleged, Mr.. Krouse de-
clared that Sullivan could not take
the money without the aid of Burko
You can't disregard the testi-
mony of Sullivan" he emphasized.
The prosecutor charged that Sulli-
van could not have operated alone,
as claimed by the defense, because
he needed the clerk, Burko, to falsify
the court records to show suspended
sentences.
Mr.. Krouse pointed to the testi-
mony of three witnesses he named
as having testified the first day Of
the trial during the prosecution S
presentation of charges of alleged
fee splitting by Burko and Sullivan.
They were Albert Franklin, colored,
charged with having no permit, who
said he gave Sullivan s12; Benjamin
Warner Smith, accused of speeding
who said he gave Mr.. Sullivan, So,
and James Proctor. charged with
second offenSe speeding, who said he
paid Mr. Sullivan $40
The Matte Edwards case figured
largely throughout the trial. in re-
peated attempts of the defense to
get it into the record in testimony
finally by Burko, and at the last in
final argument by Mr.. Laughlin.
Defense counsel said the case had
come up last year first before Judge
Newman, who had insisted the