Evening star., 1945-05-01
Letters to The Star
MIR. Patterson Challenges an
Editorial Statement
To the Editor of The Star

IdltOI ldl OldlCIIlCHI
To the Editor Of The Star:
On April 81, 1945, The Evening Star
published an editorial, under the title
Shapiro Pardoned," which recognized
the War Departments recent action in
the case Of Sidney Shapiro. The edi-
torial, in addition, commented upon the
conviction of the soldier, at whose court
martial trial Shapiro acted as defense
counsel, and stated that the soldier had
been convicted on the basis of dubious
testimony" While the soldiers guilt or
innocence has no bearing upon the
Shapiro case, know that you desire to
be fair. I am writing this letter so that
you may have before you the facts on
which the soldier was convicted.
AS you know, the conviction was for
assault on 15-year-old girl, with intent
to rape. The victim promptly reported
the assault to her foster mother, and
the police were notified. The girl told
the police that she had bitten the as
sailant's right thumb. Shortly after
ward, civilian and military police picked
up soldier on the street. His right
thumb was wrapped in handkerchief
and, upon examination, found to bear a
wound. The testimony was that there
were teeth marks on the thumb and
that the wound was fresh. He had no
credible explanation of his bleeding
thumb. The man was taken to the
police station. where he was identified
by the girl. She was the only one who
could have identified the assailant as
there was no other witness to the as
sault. At the first trial, the girl identi-
fed the impostor substituted by Shapiro:
but at the second trial, she picked the
accused from a group of seven other
soldiers.
There was ample evidence upon which
to convict the accused even If the girl
had been unable to identify him at the
trial as the assailant. The civilian police
turned the prisoner over to the Army,
and he remained in custody Of the Army
thereafter until he was tried. The man
who was tried and convicted was, beyond
possibility of error, the man who had
been arrested on the night Of the as
sault. That man had not been out OF
custody since the time of his arrest.
There was, and could be, no question
that the accused was the same man who
had been arrested on the night of the
assault. On the record, there should be
no doubt that the man who had been
arrested was guilty of the assault. A
conclusion that he was the guilty person
seems inevitable in the absence of
satisfactory and credible explanation of
the bleeding, marked right thumb
The court did not believe the accused's
explanation. would not have believed
it If had been member of the court.
I have had years of trial experience,
as lawyer and as judge. can say
that the evidence OF the accused's guilt
was strong evidence. 1t was not "du-
bious." With such evidence, any finding
other than guilty would have been a
miscarriage Of justice.
regret that you have seen fit to
throw doubt upon this trial. Many peo-
pie are apt to jump at conclusions and,
considering the trial in conjunction with
the Shapiro case, to assume that courts
martial are unfair tribunals. I am Ger
tain that military courts make every
effort to protect the accused's rights
and to give him fair trial. To be sure
courts martial may make mistakes. Civil
courts-all human beings-make mis-
takes. However, the mistakes made by
courts-martial are, I believe, as few
proportionately as those made by the
civil courts. In my opinion, no injus-
tice was done in the trial in question
and I venture to say that, on the rec
ord, the accused would have been con-
victed by any other court, military or
civil. ROBERT P. PATTERSON,
Undersecretary Of War.