Evening star., 1944-11-13
Appeals Court Denies
Laugh|in Return
To Sedition Trial
Votes ; to z Against
Reinstotine Lowyer;
Eicher Hit in Dissent
BY CARTER BROOKE JONES.

| BY a 3-to-2 decision, the Court
of Appeals denied today a writ
of mandamus compelling Chief
Justice Edward C. Eicher of Dis
trict Court to reinstate James
J. Laughlin as a defense attor-
ney in the sedition trial.
Associate Justice Harold M.
Stephens, in sharp dissenting
opinion In which Chief Justice D.
Lawrence Groner concurred. held
that Justice Eicher's order expelling
Mr.. Laughlin was without lawful
foundation"
Mr.. Laughlin, who was ousted
from the case Immediately after he
filed in, the House petition asking
the Impeachment of Justice Eicher,
was granted permission by the Court
of Appeals to file second petition
for writ of mandamus.
Written BY Justice EdEerton.
The majority opinion of the Ap-
pellate Court was written by As
sociate Justice Henry w. Edgerton
and agreed to by Associate Justices
Justin Miller and Thurman w.
Arnold.
Justice Edgerton recalled that
after Mr. Laughlin was dismissed
from the trial on July he took an
immediate appeal and the four JUS
tices of the Court of Appeals then
sitting denied the writ by splitting,
two-to-two, in their opinion The pc
titioner then moved for rehearing
which also was denied by the equally
divided bench. The fifth member,
Justice Miller. was absent from the
city at the time
We now grant leave to file" the
majority opinion said, but deny the
petition for the writ"
Justice Edgerton pointed out that
the petition for Impeachment which
Mr.. Laughlin filed contains highly
derogatory assertions, some of them
fantastic, regarding respondents
(Jusice Eicher'S alleged relation to
the trial and his alleged conduct of
the trial and is in effect a public
profession of contempt for respond
ents character"
Embarrassing to Remain.
Belief was expressed that an at
torney publishing such a document
during trial should ask to be ex-
cused from the case. His further
participation, it was explained,
would be useful neither to his
client nor to the court and would
seriously embarrass counsel, court
and defendants"
Justice Edgerton said it was i'm
material whether such a procedure
was protected by the right of petit
Ition and free speech or could be con-
Isidered "a criminal attempt to OBJ
Istruct justice" for in either event
his continuance in the trial would
be equally harmful.
Justice Stephens said in his dis
senting opinion that he and Chief
Justice Groner had felt last sum-
mer that Mr.. Laughlin's petition
presented cause of action for
relief.
The dissenting opinion recognized
that there was precedent for dis
missal of an attorney during a trial,
but added
1T is one thing for a judge to for
bid lawyers continuing in an un-
ethical position which will vitiate
the fairness of a trial. it is quite a
different thing for a judge to forbid
a lawyers further appearance in a
trial because he has filed outside
the court, i. e., with the Speaker of
the House, an impeachment petit
ton. And the filing of such a petit
tion cannot be likened to such dis
orderly conduct as might warrant,
in the exercise of the courts inher-
ent power to keep order and to in
sure fair trial, removal of an attor-
ney."
In Nature of Penalty.
Justice Stephens said: "The plain
fact, under the record upon which
the respondents order of expulsion
was made is, in my view, that the
order was in the nature of a pen
atty imposed upon the petitioner
for filling the impeachment appli-
cation. Such penalty, in my view
a judge has no Affirmative power
to inflict, and further, I think the
Constitution forbids such a pen
atty. The power of court to pro-
tect the orderly processes Of justice
cannot be exercised in such man
! (see LAUGHLIN, Page A-53