Evening star., 1944-04-20
Eicher Removes
Restrictionson
Press at Trial
Reporters Will Use
Spectators Benches
At Sedition Heurinu
By GARTER BROOKE ZONES.


conspiracy trial in District Court
viii be admitted during the Sc
lection of a jury, scheduled to
start this afternoon, it was de-
cided today.
This was the arrangement agreed
to after a committee from the press
called on Chief Justice Edward C.
Eicher during the midday recess.
Press tables were removed to make
room for prospective jurors, but
spectators benches were assigned to
the press in one corner of the
cramped courtroom.
This followed a morning session
occupied with numerous preliminary
motions by defense counsel. Many
of the attorneys protested against
the announcement Of Justice Eicher
at the opening of court today that
only four or five members Of the
press could be admitted during the
selection Of jury because Of space
limitations.
The lawyers contended that all
the press should be allowed in the
courtroom throughout the trial, and
that otherwise it could not be con.
sidered q public proceeding.
Defense Motions Denied.
Justice Eicher finally shut of fur
ther argument about the press and
denied various other defense mo-
tions. The conference with the
Press Committee followed.
Before the doors opened, Prose.
cutor o. John Rogge asserted: NO
body is more anxious to have all the
press in than I am. If necessary
we could bring in only a few pros
pective jurymen at a time instead
of the whole panel"
"It has never been the intent Of
this court" Justice Eicher said,
ITO exclude any member Of the press
during any part of the trial, so far
as the facilities of this courtroom
will permit"
Attorney Protests.
The first to protest against re-
stricting the number Of reporters
was Ira Chase Koehne, representing
four defendants.
"In behalf of my clients he said,
"I seriously object to the exclusion
of the press as described by the
court. You might as well exclude
all but a few OF defense counsel, In
|structing the attorneys present to
/ fill in for other attorneys on what
happened In their absence. We are
entitled to a public trial"
"The court" Justice Eicher said.
makes the observation that It
seems to recollect that Mr.. Koehne
was one of the speakers who urged
a continuance of this trial because
the press was giving undue pub
liclty to certain matters in this
case"
Mr.. Koehne said he did not re-
call urging pcstponement on that
ground.
Another defense attorney, James
J. Laughlin, said he wanted to pro-
test against ,"the apparent steady
encroachment on freedom of the
press here"
Justice Eicher overruled these and
various other objections and said
The would not hear further argu-
ments on the matter.
Jury Selection Delayed.
The selection of a jury, however,
was delayed further by other pre-
liminary motions and by a discus
sion of proposed stipulation among
attorneys regarding procedure.
j. Austin Latimer of defense coun-
sci said he wanted the record to
show the entire press was excluded
from one session of the trial yes
terday.
"The court refuses to let the
record show that because it is not
a fact" Justice Eicher said.
Mr.. Latimer referred to a situa-
ton that arose after a 10-minute
recess. Deputy marshals on the
door, thinking a jury panel was
about to be examined, refused to
admit any reporters. Justice Eicher
adjourned court for the day, how
ever, Immediately on resuning the
bench. An informal indignation
meeting of defense counsel followed,
with the press looking on.
Objects to Shadowing.
Mr.. Koehne jumped up again to
object to what he described as the
constant shadowing of his four
clients-Howard v. Borenstrupp,
Ernest F.. Elmhurst, Lois De Lafay-
cite Washburn and Frank w. Clark
to the alleged fact that his
telephone had been tapped.
Everything that goes on in my
office is heard over the tapped tele-
phone, even if it remains on the
hook" Mr.. Koehne declared.
Justice Eicher took no action.
Later Mr.. Koehne raised the
racial issue in a motion he filed
with the clerk of the court, to be
argued later. He asked that the
court reporters making a transcript
of the proceedings be discharged
because member of the firm was
Jewish. He said the defendants
could not be assured of an &C
SNh oeS tSPSAO v io1 tlluO 1CdSOlls
Rules on Challenges.
Justice Eicher ruled that the en-
tire defense could have the right
to excuse only 10 jurors on peremp-
tory challenges with two additional
challenges for alterate jurors, who
would consider the case only in the
event regular jurors were incapaci-
tated during the trial The Gov
ernment has six challenges and one
for the alternate jurors.
Numerous defense attorneys OBJ
jected that there was no way their
clients could be properly repie.
sented in the challenging since there
was only third of a challenge f6r
each defendant The court held the
statute was clear-the challenges
would have to be exercised by agree
ment of all defense counsel. T.
Henry H. Klein, pointing out that
his client, Eugene N. Sanctuary, was
IS years old, contended this was a
capital case and should rate the
larger number of challenges of cases
involving q possible death penalty.