Evening star., 1944-07-09
Appeals Court Denies
laugh|in Plea Against
Sedifion Trial Custer

Sedition Trial Custer
By CARTER BROOKE JONES.
The Court Of Appeals, by an
equally divided decision that has
the effect Of sustaining the
lower court, refused yesterday to
allow Defense Attorney James J,
Laughlin to petition for a writ
OF mandamus against Chief Jus
tlce Edward c. Eicher, who had
ordered Mr.. Laughlin ousted
from the mass sedition trial in
District Court.
The higher court previously had
refused to interfere with the trial by
denying defense counsel to inter-
vene IN the 12-week trial, including
appeals from decisions of Justice
Eicher refusing to disqualify him
self as presiding judge and rejecting
motions for changes of venue.
Mr.. Laughlin, who represented
OF the 20 defendants, was dismissed
from the case beoDlse he filed in
the Speakers ONCE a petition ask
ing the House to impeach Justice
Eicher, after he had been fined
twice previously for contempt OF
court.
The courts brief order yesterday
explained the appeal was con-
sidered before Chief Justice d.
Lawrence Groner and Justices
Harold M. Stephens, Henry w.
Edgerton and Thurman Arnold
There was no indication how the
justices split.
The fifth member, Justice Justin
Miller, was absent from the city
and took no part in the proceeding
Seeks Rehearing.
After the Appeals Court decision
was announced, Mr.. Laughlin filed
with the court petition asking a
rehearing. In the motion, he point
ed to the divided court and asked
that Justice Miller be called into the
case, SO that the matter might be
determined definitely and a record
made. He also requested that oral
arguments be heard. Mr.. Laughlin
said he planned to take the issue
to the Supreme Court if necessary
In his original petition, Mr.
Laughlin insisted he had a right to
file the impeachment petition as a
citizen and Justice Eicher had de-
prived his clients of their constitu-
tional right to counsel of their
choosing. He contended that the
court was without authority to oust
him from the case.
In an answer on behalf of Justice
Eicher, o. John Rogge and Joseph
w. Burns, prosecutors in the sedition
case. pointed to the impeachment
petition as a eliminating act of Mr.
Laughlin, whose conduct, they
charged, throughout the trial had
been continuously contemptuous
and disrespectful of the court"
After the second fine of 5000 for
contempt the prosecutor stated the
defense attorney sought to impeach
the Judge by way of showing that
he is above the authority of the
court to discipline him.
Denies Being DisrespectfuI.
In reply to the answer, filed yes
terday. Mr. Laughlin denied that he
ever had been disrespectfW to the
court, but contended he had dill
gently tried at all times to properly
represent his clients and to voice his
protests at arbitrary and improper
rulings"
The attorney added that ne had
filed the Impeachment petition be-
cause he believed it to be his duty,
since the conduct of Justice Eicher
at the trial was bringing the ad-
ministration OF justice in the Dis
trict of Columbia into disfavor and
disrepute." To permit Justice Eicher
to punish him for exercising his
constitutional right to petition Con-
gress, Mr.. Laughlin maintained,
would be placing a stamp of ap-
proval on tyranny and despotism in
Its most oppressive form
Justice Eicher. in putting Mr.
Laughlin out of the case, appointed
counsel already engaged In the de-
fense to represent his clients. NJ
Edward Buckley was named to de-
fend Edward James Smythe and
j. Austin Latimer was appointed
temporarily to represent Robert
Noble. Both Mr.. Latimer and Mr..
Noble objected to this arrange
ment. and the court said 1t would
continue for the time being and
he would consider later some other
plan to provide this defendant with
counsel
Makes Formal Protest.
Noble made formal protest against
losing his attorney. Mr.. Laughlin, u
he said, lis the attorney of my own
choosing and not an appointee OF
the court. I am completely satisfied
with the brilliant manner in which
he has waged my legal battle, un-
deferred by divers attempt to ter
rorize and intimidate him."
Smythe's new attorney obtained
his release on $1,000 bond, which
Justice Eicher consented to accept
in lieu of the $4,000 for lack of
which the defendant has been held
In District Jail. Smyth's bond was
raised and he was imprisoned when
he failed to appear for the opening
of the trial. He was returned from
Upper New York State by FBI
agents. He said he had mistaken
the date of the trial.
While attorneys In and out of the
case questioned whether there was
precedent for the custer of Mr..
Laughlin in the middle Of the trial.
one such recent instance was re-
called yesterday.