Evening star., 1954-08-19
Whut Manner Of Justice?'

was quite surprised when I read
the editorial entitled What Manner
of Justice?" in the August IL Star. This
editorial seeks to condemn Federal
Judge Barnes for granting writ of
habeas corpus for Roger Touhy, dubbed
by the sensational press as Roger "The
Terrible" Touhy. The editorial departs
from The Stars usual adherence to
the facts Of the case. OF course, the
decision Of Judge Barnes did not over
rule an opinion of the Supreme Court:
the action of Judge Barnes is a right
vested in Federal courts to set aside
criminal convictions Of a State court
even though affirmed in the highest
court in the State in which they may
have occurred, when those convictions
lack fundamental fairness and due
process of law as envisaged in the
fourteenth amendment. Roger Touhy
is entitled to due process of law just
as much as any self-respeOting citizen
is entitled to due process Of law.
Furthermore, the writer of your
editorial should acQuaint himself with
the fundamental principle of law laid
down by Justice Frankfurther that q
denial Of petition for review does not
mean that the Supreme Court neces-
sarily agrees with the decision of the
lower court but that the Supreme Court
has decided that the case was not ripe
for disposition. ! think your editorial
should also have made reference to the
fact that Judge Barnes opinion was
418 pages. would question that the
writer of the editorial has yet had the
time to secure the record from the
District Court to see whether Judge
Barnes opinions were well-founded in
writing Of the testimony that was
adduced. He held extensive testimony,
and predicated upon the record he
found that perjured testimony was
knowingly offered by the State. Judge
Barnes did no more than Federal Judge
Welch did within the past 18 months
when he set aside murder conviction
of bank robber named Almedia whose
conviction had been sustained by the
Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania and
had twice been denied review by the
Supreme Court. In that case it was
shown that the police willfully sup
pressed bullet which was very mate
rial to the defense. Your reference to
the fact that the FBI prepared the
case has no particular significance.
While it is recognized by all that the
FBI is fine investigative organization,
they bear no special sanctity and they
are capable of and do commit errors
like other investigating agencies.
am indeed gratified that we have
a judge who has the courage of Judge
Barnes. There are very few who would
have had the intrepidity to render such
a decidedly unpopular opinion. Our
freedom is preserved by men who have
the courage to render unpopular opin-
ions when any judge can go along with
the tide; it is the outstanding Judge
who can rule according to his strongest
personal convictions even though that
ruling will be the subject Of controver-
sial comment.
Albert J. Ahern, Jr.
Editors note: The Star did not
question Judge Barnes legal right to
grant the writ. But the editorial ex-
pressed surprise that the judge in
effect had reversed the Supreme
Court, which in 1947 had denied
Touhy's appeal for q new trial. In
cidentally, the United States Circuit
Court Of Appeals has ordered Touhy
back to prison. pending appeal pro-
ceedings by the State Of nlinois.)