Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-04-02
Judge Kronheim's Complaint

Judge Kronheim's Complaint
Judge Milton s. Kronheim, jr, has accused
United States Attorney Leo A. Rover of adopt
ing an improper approach in discussions with
the Municipal Court bench. And Representa-
tive Celler of New York, without knowing what
the facts are, has leaped into the fray.
The combined effect is to impeach the in
tegrity of the United States Attorneys Office
a matter of some moment. Obviously, it is
important to establish the facts.
The first fact is that Mr.. Celler does not
know what he is talking about. He said Mr..
Rover induced" call of the Municipal Court
judges and criticized the judges" for the low
rate of homosexual convictions Mr.. Celler
added: mo appointed official dare tell any
judge how-to conduct trial much less induce
a judge or judges so to conduct trials as to in
crease the batting average of convictions for
any United States Attorney"
Neither the statement nor the implication
Is fair or accurate.
Mr.. Rover did not induce" the meeting of
the judges last week. and he did not criticize
any judge or judges. Chief Judge Walsh of the
Municipal Court has told The Star that the
meeting was a regular get-together of the
judges and that he invited Mr. Rover to at
tend after the latter had expressed interest in
the meetings. Mr.. Rover, according to the chief
judge, at no time criticized the court directly or
indirectly in connection with sex cases or any,
thing else. On the contrary, Chief Judge Walsh
says, Mr.. Rover's attitude was that of prose-
cutor asking for any advice the judges might
have to offer as to how he could better serve
the court So much, then, for Mr.. Celler.
Why has Judge Kronhem publicly criticized
Mr.. Rover for conduct which Chief Judge Walsh
held to be praiseworthy? The Star does not
. know the answer. Nor does The Star know why
1t has been possible to obtain convictions in
only SO per cent of Municipal Court cases in
volving charges of indecent assault and solicit
ing for lewd and indecent purposes. The record
will support the contention, however, that it is
very difficult to obtain convictions in cases of
this sort before some of the judges. The follow.
ing is an account of how Judge Kronheim dis
posed of case which came before him recently:
The defendant was accused of indecent
assault on police officer. The lawyer for the
defendant made an opening statement to the
jury in which he said the officer had taken a
drink with the accused man and that he would
prove his client to be innocent. But this, of
course, was neither testimony nor evidence.
Two witnesses testified that the defendants
reputation was good, and that was the end or
the defense case. No facts relating to the al
legged offense were offered or proved.
The prosecution put the policeman on the
stand, and he gave his sworn version of the
incident. Significantly, he denied that he had
taken drink with the defendant. The prose-
cution also put on the stand a civilian witness
who gave sworn testimony which contradicted
an important phase of the defense case, as that
case was outlined by the defense lawyer but
never established by evidence
On this state of facts, Judge Kronheim
instructed the jury to return verdict of not
guilty. In a statement read from the bench,
he never alluded to the testimony of the civil
ian witness, although-and this is significant
the defense did not ask any questions of this
man on cross examination. Judge Kronheim
did state fatty, however, that the policeman
had been drinking with the defendant, although
the only testimony on that point was the off,
GERS unqualified denial. Then Judge Kronheim
said this:
1t is rule of criminal law that the I'M
disputed facts must support no other hypoth-
esis but that of guilt. Here the undisputed
facts fall into another hypothesis and a rea-
sonable doubt is necessarily set up.
This, at best, is a curious legal doctrine,
but assuming it to be correct, what "undisputed
facts was Judge Kronheim talking about?
Surely he was not treating the claims in the
defense lawyers opening statement, unsup-
ported by any testimony, as being undisputed
facts. Actually, except for the character wit
nesses, the only undsputed facts offered in
evidence were the statements in the sworn tes-
timony of the police officer and the civilian
witness. These undiSputed facts pointed to the
guilt of the defendant. Nevertheless Judge
Kronheim ordered the jury to find him not
guilty.