Evening star., 1951-06-09
Caldwell Hearing End
Seen Likely Monday
After Hitz Testimony

After Hitz Testimony
The hearing on new trial mo-
tion for Bennie c. Caldwell. 81.
convicted last month on jury
tampering charges. is expected to
be completed Monday in District
Court.
The Jury tampering conviction
was in connection with gambling
trial of William (Snags) Lewis in
January. 1860.
Judge Richmond B. Keech yes
terday heard testimony by Assist
ant United States Attorney VIII
liam HitZ, who prosecuted Cald-
well and is opposing the defense
motion for new trial. Mr.. Hitz
said he took home with him some
notes and papers in the Caldwell
case because he had reason to
suspect the safety of the file cab
met" in his Office. These papers
were burned in a fire that started
when his home was struck by
lightning Sunday night, Mr.. Hitz
said.
Mr.. Hitz gave this testimony
when questioned by Defense At
torney Henry Lincoln Johnson. jr.,
as to the whereabouts of certain
original notes the prosecutor said
he had made on a conversation
he had with John E. Bradley. ST.
Mr.. Bradley had been employed
as a behind -the-scene informer
by the Justice Department in the
Caldwell case.
Questioned by Murray.
Mr.. HitZ testified under ques-
tioning by Assistant United States
Attorney Charles B. Murray to
refute a contention by Defense
Attorney johnson that Mr.. Hitz
had attempted to obstruct justice
in the Caldwell trial.
Mr.. Hitz read frequently from a
report which he testified had been
drawn up on information provided
him by Mr.. Bradley and with Mr..
Bradley's aid. 1t was the same
report Mr.. Bradley testified on
Thursday had been changed in
places and "colored."
Mr.. Hitz testified yesterday that
Mr.. Bradley had not been en-
ployed as an ''undercover agent"
for the Justice Department in
connection with the Caldwell case.
but as an "informer."
MIR. Hitz said he decided not to
use Mr.. Bradley any further, after
an FBI man told him Of Mr.. Brad
leys alleged actions In an Internal
Revenue Bureau tax case iavolv-
ing Sam Beard. Washington
gambler.
Had Suggested Fix"
Mr.. Hitz quoted his informant
as saying that Mr.. Bradley, while
working for the bureau, had gone
to Beard and suggested that he
could fix" things if given sufi-
cient money.
Mr.. Bradley testified on Thurs
day that, while employed by the
Justice Department in connection
with the Caldwell case, he ac-
cepted employment by the defense.
He contended. however, he did
so solely for the purpose of find
ing out "who was behind Cald-
we'll" Mr.. Bradley had testified
that actually he considered him.
self as being employed only By
the Justice Department and told
Of turning over to the Depart
ment $25 Defense Attorney John
son had given him in connection
with proposed service of a sub
poena on witness.
Mr.. Hitz testified he told Mr..
Bradley not to accept employment.
Conflicting testimony for the
court to consider is an alleged re-
port by Mr.. Bradley, testified to
by Mr.. Hitz. that Attorney John
son suggests two alternate jurors
in the Caldwell case" looked like
they might be reached" and an
alleged request by Mr.. johnson
to Mr.. Bradley to investigate the
Jurors, with a view to determin-
Ing their money needs, etc.
Mr.. Bradley has testified the
defense bent over backwards"
not to do anything improper re-
garding the Caldwell trial jury.
Mr.. Bradley did testify, however.
that Mr.. johnson wanted the
jurors investigated.
Mr.. Bradley first was called to
the stand last week by direction
OF Judge Keech, after Defense
Attorney johnson had offered an
affidavit by Mr.. Bradley in sup
port OF a motion for new trial.
Instructed to Contact Caldwell.
The affidavit declared that Mr..
Bradley had been instructed to
contact Caldwell ito attempt to
ascertain defense witnesses from
him and his attorney" in the
preparation of the defense. The
affidavit also declared that Mr..
Bradley and Mr.. Hitz had agreed
to offer Attorney johnson a "fc-
titious witness"
Yesterday, Mr. Hitz denied that
he had advised Mr.. Bradley not
to serve subpoena on a witness
sought by the defense unit. after
he had chance to talk to her.
This contradicted MI. Bradley's
testimony.
Also contradictory and vague in
the case is who was to pay a
sum of $2,500, allegedly men,
toned as proposed payment for
the prosecution records by the
defense.
MIR. Hitz denied yesterday that
he had even mentioned or sug-