Evening star., 1952-01-20
Probers Ask Reason
For Merging Trials
In Brass Rail Shooting
By Robert K. Welsh

United States Attorneys offic
reversed itself suddenly in 1914
and, in an almost unprecedente
legal move, asked that Charles T
Nelson and Henry M. Leake b
tried together for shooting eac
other at the Brass Rail Cafe.
That consolidated trial resulte
in a directed verdict of acquitts
for both men in District Court il
September, 1913. It interests tn
committee because of testimon
last week about hitherto undis
closed happenings before and afte
the shooting in January of tina
year.
The move to merge the tw,
trials-charging that Leake trie,
to force his way into the cafe ant
shot Nelson, the night manager
and that Nelson shot Leake-wa
criticized by Committee Chairmal
Nicely as "a new type of law.
Committee Counsel Arnold Bau
man declared that trying two de
PENDANTS jointly in a felony cas-
Of that kind was not only highl.
unusual but almost a guarante,
of acquittal.
Issues Again Important.
The legal issues of the tria
more than four years ago hold tn,
committees attention now becaus'
of its relation to recent revelations
about Roger w. (Whitetop) Sim
kins, a numbers operator, Whose
wife was identified as owner o.
the cafe in the TOO block of Sew.
enth street NV.
The committee was told las
Friday that a group of numbers
operators discussed the advisable.
ty of killing Simkins. It hearc
testimony that Leake went to ths
club at 2::30 am, January 8, 1948
that he and Nelson shot eacf
other, and that Simkins paid Mel.
sons hospital bills and offered t.
compensate him j. up to $1,000
Nelson according to his own tes.
timony to the committee. accused
Simkins of double-crossing him
later, causing his arrest on the
assault charge and not paying the
full $1,000.
The record of court proceedings
gave few hints of such happen.
ings. Assistant United States At.
torney Charles B. Murray, in hi.
opening statement to the jury
said only that the prosecution
would prove Leake went to the
Brass Rail to see Simkins in con.
necdon with trouble about "cut'
ting into" the numbers business
Trial Dates Postponed.
The record shows that Nelson
was indicted on assault charge:
some time after Leake was in
dicted on similar charges by the
same grand jury. After three post
ponements in the trial date. the
question of setting dates for sep
arate trials came up before Chief
Judge Bolitha j. Laws on July IL
1948. Judge Laws set the Nelson
trial for July 10 and the Leake
trial for a week later.
When informed by Mr.. Murray
that the cases were Identical and
the witnesses practically identi-
cal" In each, Judge Laws asked
whether the prosecution moved /. 10
consolidate them. Mr.. Murray,
according to the record, replied
that he did not think they could
be consolidated without consent.
Four days later, the United
States Attorneys Office moved to
consolidate the cases. At a session
before Judge Laws, Mr.. Murray
argued that the court had "in-
herent power and discretion" tc
order such. a consolidation. He
said the Government would con-
tend, whether the cases were tried
together or separately, that each
of the defendants was guilty Of
assault, Leake as the aggresso1
because he went to the cafe look
ing for someone" and Nelson be-
cause he shot later when there
was mo element of elf-defense
or other justification for shoot
ing"
Doesn't Recall Statement.
Mr.. Murray told The Star last
night that he did not recall hav-
ing stated on July IL, 1948, thai
he did not think the cases coulo
be consolidated. He added that
he would have to consult the orig
inal record. He explained that I'll
I did change my mind at that
time it was only because I looked
up the law and became convinced
that it should be DONE"
Mr.. Murray recalled that at.
torneys for Nelson and Leake "bit.
terly" objected to consolidating
the cases. The record indicates
that Bernard Margolius. attorney
for Nelson, and Ray jenkins, ar
attorney for Leake, argued against
the Governments motion to con.
solidate.
Mr.. Jenkins said he did mo-
dispute the courts inherent pow
er" to consolidate the cases. Blu
he added: II don't see how a mar
can get a fair trial before a jur!
in spite of the best admonition
Of the court to the jury to dis
regard statements made by on'
defendant out of the presence O
the other. Each defendant is sub
stantially the complaining witnes
against the other"
Judge Cites His Opinion.
Judge Laws, in granting the mo
ton to consolidate, said: II frankl.
think in cases where the charge
grow out Of the same transac
ton and the same offense. tina
they should be consolidated un
less consolidation was clearly ere
ative of damage to one of tn
defendants.
II believe that in this case tn
cases should be consolidated. II
develonS at the trial that ther